Check out the patch notes for the v17 Precursor Update here: http://maplestory2.nexon.net/en/news/article/53778/precursor-update-v17

[NA-Middle East] How much Skin is too much?

Comments

  • BulbasaurBulbasaur
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 2,525
    Posts: 233
    Member
    edited 9:29PM November 5, 2018
    Zarozian wrote: »
    Those parents were once kids too, who have seen their mom or their dad, walk around in just underwear during those ridiculously hot summers....UNLESS THEY WERE WEARING BURQAS!

    Aside from the fact that some parents don't do this, sure. However the issue is centered around clearly sexual outfits (portrayed on child like figures). If you're intimate enough with your child, seeing underwear becomes a non-sexual issue. However it would still be quite odd if a parent wore an outfit that was bought in a sex shop around their kid.

    Also, a more accurate analogy would be "how comfortable would you be if your kid instead saw a stranger in a clearly sexual outfit?". There's a special understanding and bondage between a child and their parent (or other family members) that seeing them in their most intimate moments (that would otherwise embarrass them if a stranger saw) sometimes becomes a trivial matter. However, I can imagine that most parents would feel uncomfortable if their child was with a stranger in an outfit bought from a sex shop for example. Media portrayal is no different; children cannot intimately relate to these figures. Furthermore, such outfits are portrayed on children (and/or child-like figures) themselves.
    Zarozian wrote: »
    But nah even they take that off when at home too. Plus kids these days are exposed to things that are far more worse than some skin. It just doesn’t phase them at all when they go to the beach. That’s how you know.

    Sure. However to imply that we shouldn't address an issue because there are "things that are far more worse" (if that is what you were implying) is like saying we should neglect first world problems because kids are starving in third world places like Africa. The beach isn't exactly a "sexual" place. Exposing skin doesn't necessarily imply sexual, however outfits that clearly look like they come from a sex shop does have sexual implications.
    Zarozian wrote: »
    Nah I’m just kidding. I am talking about social media and TV in general and in the cartoons they watch. It’s all there. They aren’t dumb, they know exactly what’s going on and they just play dumb and feign ignorance around you. =\

    Sure they know "what's going on", however that doesn't address whether they should be exposed to such material. Many children undoubtedly know the implications of some profane words for example, but do parents say "I don't care whether my kid becomes exposed to vulgar language because they probably know it already"? Common sense dictates no, because normal parents don't want their children to pick up those kinds of habits. Similarly, there's a reason why many games/TV shows, etc., have an age rating. Although many children have been exposed to sex, gore and violence, for example, parents often don't want young children viewing such content.
    HowlyeFloe
  • BizuBizu
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 1,595
    Posts: 25
    Member
    At the end of the day, I don't care what your opinion is on what is and is not lewd, because it doesn't matter. Nexon's the final say in what gets taken down and what doesn't and it's clear from this obtuse derailment that everyone's standards are different.

    I was raised in a french household (who'daguessed) where the body wasnt shamed. Oh you forgot your towel, go downstairs and grab one, even if you're nude. We didn't go out of our way to shame the body, and it's not like anyone was sexualized in my household. Similarly, there are people raised with conservative values who will shame a girl for wearing a tank top because it's too much for a little girl. That line is incredibly fuzzy and based on personal experience, therefore Nexon (not you, not me, not anyone besides nexon) should release a guideline to demonstrate what is too much in their eyes- since they have not set a clear, defined example within their own game and the way they take UGC down now, it discourages thoughtful creations.

    Unless you're talking about guidelines, please cease in ship-posting in this thread unless you'd like to stay on topic about guidelines. You've done an excellent job in proving my point.
    GretaCarbonCoalVeremisiaSyrusMarufuji
  • GretaGreta
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 2,080
    Posts: 65
    Member
    I will continue to adore characters that wear corsets, negligees and other revealing outfits in Maplestory 2. And you won't stop me. So suck it.
    AnOldGeezer
  • SyrusMarufujiSyrusMarufuji
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 3,395
    Posts: 202
    Member
    Newest update reveals bubble bath outfit available in the style crate.

    unknown.pngunknown.png

    They look adorable, yet it makes me wonder about whether this is the absolute limit nexon will go.

    Apparently the recent update says this:
    Additionally, since we work with teams in other countries, there are differing understandings of what is considered unacceptable. As a result, there were cases where some designs have been incorrectly removed. We sincerely apologize for your inconvenience and to improve this we have made a few internal changes to improve on our consistency:
    We have added more details to our UGC review guidelines
    We have simplified categories and criterias with detailed examples we have seen in the actual Design Shop
    We are improving our training to ensure we are consistent when removing designs
    We are reviewing tools which could help us automatically identify obvious violations, to allow our team to focus more on important reviews

    CarbonCoalAnOldGeezerDanteYoda
  • ZarozianZarozian
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 3,520
    Posts: 421
    Member
    Bulbasaur wrote: »
    Zarozian wrote: »
    Those parents were once kids too, who have seen their mom or their dad, walk around in just underwear during those ridiculously hot summers....UNLESS THEY WERE WEARING BURQAS!

    Aside from the fact that some parents don't do this, sure. However the issue is centered around clearly sexual outfits (portrayed on child like figures). If you're intimate enough with your child, seeing underwear becomes a non-sexual issue. However it would still be quite odd if a parent wore an outfit that was bought in a sex shop around their kid.

    Also, a more accurate analogy would be "how comfortable would you be if your kid instead saw a stranger in a clearly sexual outfit?". There's a special understanding and bondage between a child and their parent (or other family members) that seeing them in their most intimate moments (that would otherwise embarrass them if a stranger saw) sometimes becomes a trivial matter. However, I can imagine that most parents would feel uncomfortable if their child was with a stranger in an outfit bought from a sex shop for example. Media portrayal is no different; children cannot intimately relate to these figures. Furthermore, such outfits are portrayed on children (and/or child-like figures) themselves.
    Zarozian wrote: »
    But nah even they take that off when at home too. Plus kids these days are exposed to things that are far more worse than some skin. It just doesn’t phase them at all when they go to the beach. That’s how you know.

    Sure. However to imply that we shouldn't address an issue because there are "things that are far more worse" (if that is what you were implying) is like saying we should neglect first world problems because kids are starving in third world places like Africa. The beach isn't exactly a "sexual" place. Exposing skin doesn't necessarily imply sexual, however outfits that clearly look like they come from a sex shop does have sexual implications.
    Zarozian wrote: »
    Nah I’m just kidding. I am talking about social media and TV in general and in the cartoons they watch. It’s all there. They aren’t dumb, they know exactly what’s going on and they just play dumb and feign ignorance around you. =\

    Sure they know "what's going on", however that doesn't address whether they should be exposed to such material. Many children undoubtedly know the implications of some profane words for example, but do parents say "I don't care whether my kid becomes exposed to vulgar language because they probably know it already"? Common sense dictates no, because normal parents don't want their children to pick up those kinds of habits. Similarly, there's a reason why many games/TV shows, etc., have an age rating. Although many children have been exposed to sex, gore and violence, for example, parents often don't want young children viewing such content.

    If I were a kid, which I was, and I saw some cringefest that happened on the train of some gay guy wearing a bumble bee sex outfit shaking his crotch in a pelvic thrust motion in front of everyone in the train, which I did and so did many other kids too taking the train, I don't think we would be phased in the slightest but our parents would probably murder that guy and sue him for indecent exposure should he ever get caught, which he didn't.

    I imagine if I were sitting with my son on the train in the future and stupid crap like that happen, I would whisper to my kid and be like:

    "See son. This is what children who don't have fathers. ;)"

    And then my boy would probably have this straight stone face just staring straight ahead and not making eye contact with that guy or me.

    But TL;DR I think most of us are desensitized to all the sexual stuff that we don't even care anymore, unless they attempt to harass us or touch us. Other than that I'd say we let people do what they want.
  • IncompIncomp
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 520
    Posts: 2
    Member
    Bulbasaur wrote: »
    I have. If you can't tell I'm from NYC. People don't care.

    That's because they pretend not to. I bet in many peoples minds, they are thinking "what the heck is this person doing?"

    This is called projection.
  • BulbasaurBulbasaur
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 2,525
    Posts: 233
    Member
    edited 10:38PM November 6, 2018
    Bizu wrote: »
    At the end of the day, I don't care what your opinion is on what is and is not lewd, because it doesn't matter. Nexon's the final say in what gets taken down and what doesn't and it's clear from this obtuse derailment that everyone's standards are different.

    I was raised in a french household (who'daguessed) where the body wasnt shamed. Oh you forgot your towel, go downstairs and grab one, even if you're nude. We didn't go out of our way to shame the body, and it's not like anyone was sexualized in my household. Similarly, there are people raised with conservative values who will shame a girl for wearing a tank top because it's too much for a little girl. That line is incredibly fuzzy and based on personal experience, therefore Nexon (not you, not me, not anyone besides nexon) should release a guideline to demonstrate what is too much in their eyes- since they have not set a clear, defined example within their own game and the way they take UGC down now, it discourages thoughtful creations.

    Unless you're talking about guidelines, please cease in ship-posting in this thread unless you'd like to stay on topic about guidelines. You've done an excellent job in proving my point.

    Considering that you wanted nothing more than to point out Nexon's apparent hypocrisy, as evidenced by the tone of your original post (and subsequent posts), it was hard to take your opinion seriously. Even if Nexon did remove all suggestive outfits in the game and gave clear guidelines that players must adhere to, there would undoubtedly be people like you who will take to the forum to complain about not being able to have porn outfits in the game.

    There are plenty of reasons why Nexon may remove certain outfits while leaving other "more" suggestive outfits in the game; (1) maybe they are actually incompetent and are unaware that there are more suggestive elements in the game, (2) some players view an outfit as more suggestive than another while an employee views it as the opposite, (3) it is more difficult to remove some elements such as NPCs and drawings (because there likely needs to be a consensus among the different Nexon branches), so the easiest course of action to take is to remove UGC that is overtly sexual.

    There is nothing more that one can add to your thread in terms of discussion points. Your thread is a "non-discussion" thread, it is literally just a request for Nexon to give clearer guidelines (and the way that we partake in it is to actually wait for Nexon's course of action on this issue). I don't know what sort of discussion (from the players) you were expecting when you created this. Were you expecting 20 "yeah I agree Nexon should do something about this" comments to end the thread? It usually devolves to one side disagreeing with another on what outfits are considered inappropriate (and this happened before I even engaged in this thread), people bashing Nexon by pointing out their hypocrisy (unless that's what you aimed for), and people writing snarky comments to one another.
    Incomp wrote: »
    Bulbasaur wrote: »
    I have. If you can't tell I'm from NYC. People don't care.

    That's because they pretend not to. I bet in many peoples minds, they are thinking "what the heck is this person doing?"

    This is called projection.

    Well... it's pretty much common sense.
    Howlye
  • PinkFoxxyPinkFoxxy
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 1,090
    Posts: 66
    Member
    Kugelblitz wrote: »
    Bulbasaur wrote: »
    Kugelblitz wrote: »
    Man, quit your whining Bulbasaur.

    This adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and only informs me that you don't know what you're talking about.

    You are also adding nothing to the conversation. All you go on about is "children" and "sexual". What a pervert you are.

    why do yall keep doing this? calling them a perv bcuz they are talking about children/sexualization. they're talking about how children SHOULDNT be sexualized. At this point yall just playin games cuz yall know exactly what we mean.
    Howlye
  • HowlyeHowlye
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 815
    Posts: 31
    Member
    Bulbasaur is my favorite pokemon
  • AnOldGeezerAnOldGeezer
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 3,740
    Posts: 354
    Member
    Zarozian wrote: »
    Bulbasaur wrote: »
    Zarozian wrote: »
    Those parents were once kids too, who have seen their mom or their dad, walk around in just underwear during those ridiculously hot summers....UNLESS THEY WERE WEARING BURQAS!

    Aside from the fact that some parents don't do this, sure. However the issue is centered around clearly sexual outfits (portrayed on child like figures). If you're intimate enough with your child, seeing underwear becomes a non-sexual issue. However it would still be quite odd if a parent wore an outfit that was bought in a sex shop around their kid.

    Also, a more accurate analogy would be "how comfortable would you be if your kid instead saw a stranger in a clearly sexual outfit?". There's a special understanding and bondage between a child and their parent (or other family members) that seeing them in their most intimate moments (that would otherwise embarrass them if a stranger saw) sometimes becomes a trivial matter. However, I can imagine that most parents would feel uncomfortable if their child was with a stranger in an outfit bought from a sex shop for example. Media portrayal is no different; children cannot intimately relate to these figures. Furthermore, such outfits are portrayed on children (and/or child-like figures) themselves.
    Zarozian wrote: »
    But nah even they take that off when at home too. Plus kids these days are exposed to things that are far more worse than some skin. It just doesn’t phase them at all when they go to the beach. That’s how you know.

    Sure. However to imply that we shouldn't address an issue because there are "things that are far more worse" (if that is what you were implying) is like saying we should neglect first world problems because kids are starving in third world places like Africa. The beach isn't exactly a "sexual" place. Exposing skin doesn't necessarily imply sexual, however outfits that clearly look like they come from a sex shop does have sexual implications.
    Zarozian wrote: »
    Nah I’m just kidding. I am talking about social media and TV in general and in the cartoons they watch. It’s all there. They aren’t dumb, they know exactly what’s going on and they just play dumb and feign ignorance around you. =\

    Sure they know "what's going on", however that doesn't address whether they should be exposed to such material. Many children undoubtedly know the implications of some profane words for example, but do parents say "I don't care whether my kid becomes exposed to vulgar language because they probably know it already"? Common sense dictates no, because normal parents don't want their children to pick up those kinds of habits. Similarly, there's a reason why many games/TV shows, etc., have an age rating. Although many children have been exposed to sex, gore and violence, for example, parents often don't want young children viewing such content.

    If I were a kid, which I was, and I saw some cringefest that happened on the train of some gay guy wearing a bumble bee sex outfit shaking his crotch in a pelvic thrust motion in front of everyone in the train, which I did and so did many other kids too taking the train, I don't think we would be phased in the slightest but our parents would probably murder that guy and sue him for indecent exposure should he ever get caught, which he didn't.

    I imagine if I were sitting with my son on the train in the future and stupid crap like that happen, I would whisper to my kid and be like:

    "See son. This is what children who don't have fathers. ;)"

    And then my boy would probably have this straight stone face just staring straight ahead and not making eye contact with that guy or me.

    But TL;DR I think most of us are desensitized to all the sexual stuff that we don't even care anymore, unless they attempt to harass us or touch us. Other than that I'd say we let people do what they want.

    thats flat-out hilarious
  • ReziRezi
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 1,465
    Posts: 100
    Member
    Zarozian wrote: »
    If I were a kid, which I was, and I saw some cringefest that happened on the train of some gay guy wearing a bumble bee sex outfit shaking his crotch in a pelvic thrust motion in front of everyone in the train, which I did and so did many other kids too taking the train, I don't think we would be phased in the slightest but our parents would probably murder that guy and sue him for indecent exposure should he ever get caught, which he didn't.

    I imagine if I were sitting with my son on the train in the future and stupid crap like that happen, I would whisper to my kid and be like:

    "See son. This is what children who don't have fathers. ;)"

    And then my boy would probably have this straight stone face just staring straight ahead and not making eye contact with that guy or me.


    Post of the year. 10/10
  • PinkFoxxyPinkFoxxy
    MapleStory 2 Rep: 1,090
    Posts: 66
    Member
    edited 11:13AM November 19, 2018
    Zarozian wrote: »
    "See son. This is what children who don't have fathers. ;)"

    what does this even mean

    "this is what children who dont have fathers do"??? you mean?