Random question, if females are usually checked to get pregnant. And your female woohoos a random town with try for baby, will they both get pregnant...
From what I saw in the options you could do one or the other but not both. In other words if she can get pregnant she can't cause pregnancy. Also they said that only the sims you adjust to have these options would have them so a random townie wouldn't. I hope that helps!
Random question, if females are usually checked to get pregnant. And your female woohoos a random town with try for baby, will they both get pregnant...
Not if the townie they woohoo with can't get them pregnant, such as a normal townie female. I imagine the option to try for baby won't come up then.
Good point, i think I had a blonde moment <.< *hides in shame*
Random question, if females are usually checked to get pregnant. And your female woohoos a random town with try for baby, will they both get pregnant...
From what I saw in the options you could do one or the other but not both. In other words if she can get pregnant she can't cause pregnancy. Also they said that only the sims you adjust to have these options would have them so a random townie wouldn't. I hope that helps!
I can see this getting very confusing to players. Having to keep a list of the one who can get pregnant and ones who can't...it could get very confusing especially if they forget. Then complaints their Sims can no longer get pregnant because they forgot they changed an option on a townie.
Hm, good point except I don't think that confusion would happen because the "Try for Baby" option just wouldn't show up unless the two Sims in question were complements in that department.
Okay, so I read through this whole thread and I have one thing to say.
People have all the right to censor you if you are on a site that is owned by them/ran by them.
Freedom of Speech only means that you can not be arrested/censored by the government for what you say
This does not mean that groups that OWN/RUN the website you are using to express your opinion, can not censor you. It is THEIR website, they have every right to control the type of content that is discussed in it, whether or not you agree with what they do. On the internet, where you can literally have someone's comment flagged and deleted by the staff, there is no freedom of speech in the sense that there is in the real world.
Is it moral though?
They've censored users against this update, yet kept @aaronjc123 comment where he called all religion "universally awful".
That is not moral.
What is moral is subjective, it up for the mods of the site to decide what is allowed and what isn't.
I personally do not agree when people say universally awful.
Can people use it as an excuse for doing awful things? Yes.
The 🐸🐸🐸🐸, and other terrorist groups have done this exact thing.
But there are people who have used religion as a way to better themselves and help themselves through tough times. It can be good and it can both be bad, just like most things in this world.
No, morality is set in stone.
To quote another site: "Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality." "
There is no absolute to ANYTHING that is man-made, not even words, as the definition of those change almost on a yearly bases.
Well, that's a wide, unanswered debate within philosophy and the like -- do humans have an innate idea of morality and what is "fair"? Many people sit at both sides of the fence.
Personally, I believe fairness and morality are taught by society. But I rather not discuss this further as I could derail the thread.
And the beauty of it is neither side can be proven correct or incorrect. I don't think this is derailing the thread; censorship and the morality of such is very relevant to OP's sentiments.
Censorship and the morality of such is the ENTIRE point of this thread.
Random question, if females are usually checked to get pregnant. And your female woohoos a random town with try for baby, will they both get pregnant...
From what I saw in the options you could do one or the other but not both. In other words if she can get pregnant she can't cause pregnancy. Also they said that only the sims you adjust to have these options would have them so a random townie wouldn't. I hope that helps!
I can see this getting very confusing to players. Having to keep a list of the one who can get pregnant and ones who can't...it could get very confusing especially if they forget. Then complaints their Sims can no longer get pregnant because they forgot they changed an option on a townie.
I don't play rotational but I could see that happening! I had kind of wished for the ability to do both but I'm happy with what they've given us. I hope it's not too much of an issue for those who rotate their gameplay!
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
"People really love to explore 'failure states. In fact, the failure states are really much more interesting than the success states." ~ Will Wright
At the end of the day it's all optional. The Gurus are finally listening to their players (to a capacity) allowing simmers to have an option in how they play. You don't want your same sex couples to have children between the two of them? No problem. Don't want your male sim to wear a dress? Done. There is nothing in this patch that can affect your gameplay unless you opt for it to. The patch only gave more options it didn't take anything from your gameplay experience. IF you don't want XYZ then don't deal with it. Ignore it and move on.
I posted a comment in the "express yourself" thread earlier today about how minority groups tend to be very vocal in relation to their size, and just pointing up a couple of problems with being too easy-going. When I checked just now it's been deleted. How is that free and open debate?
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
I posted a comment in the "express yourself" thread earlier today about how minority groups tend to be very vocal in relation to their size, and just pointing up a couple of problems with being too easy-going. When I checked just now it's been deleted. How is that free and open debate?
You've brought the discussion to the right place, climb on board!
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Does EA have that kind of influence outside of this website?
I can understand EA having a say in what is put up here since this is their place and they've put up rules that, while make sense, do technically infringe on someone's freedom of speech (assuming said person wants to have the freedom to be a horrible person to somebody else / discuss topics that have been proven time and time again to be difficult to discuss without devolving into slanging matches / violate certain country laws) but I haven't heard of EA actively censoring someone's external blog.
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Does EA have that kind of influence outside of this website?
I can understand EA having a say in what is put up here since this is their place and they've put up rules that, while make sense, do technically infringe on someone's freedom of speech but I haven't heard of EA actively censoring someone's external blog.
The fan sites have been censoring these comments too.
For those saying EA or Maxis or the Sims are censoring you I don't think you are seeing the whole picture. They aren't deleting threads because someone says they don't like the patch. They are deleting them when it becomes insulting and rude. I'm not saying you were being insulting or rude, but someone in the thread was and enough so that the MODs felt the need to remove the discussion. If things are kept civilized then I don't think there will be an issue. The biggest problem is that people feel so strongly about their side of things that sometimes it spills over.
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Does EA have that kind of influence outside of this website?
I can understand EA having a say in what is put up here since this is their place and they've put up rules that, while make sense, do technically infringe on someone's freedom of speech but I haven't heard of EA actively censoring someone's external blog.
The fan sites have been censoring these comments too.
But isn't that on the operators of those fan sites rather than EA directly?
For those saying EA or Maxis or the Sims are censoring you I don't think you are seeing the whole picture. They aren't deleting threads because someone says they don't like the patch. They are deleting them when it becomes insulting and rude. I'm not saying you were being insulting or rude, but someone in the thread was and enough so that the MODs felt the need to remove the discussion. If things are kept civilized then I don't think there will be an issue. The biggest problem is that people feel so strongly about their side of things that sometimes it spills over.
They are taking down threads because someone says they don't like the patch.
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Does EA have that kind of influence outside of this website?
I can understand EA having a say in what is put up here since this is their place and they've put up rules that, while make sense, do technically infringe on someone's freedom of speech but I haven't heard of EA actively censoring someone's external blog.
The fan sites have been censoring these comments too.
But isn't that on the operators of those fan sites rather than EA directly?
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Does EA have that kind of influence outside of this website?
I can understand EA having a say in what is put up here since this is their place and they've put up rules that, while make sense, do technically infringe on someone's freedom of speech but I haven't heard of EA actively censoring someone's external blog.
The fan sites have been censoring these comments too.
But isn't that on the operators of those fan sites rather than EA directly?
Yes. It's still censorship.
It is, but that's not down to EA.
Within the realms of this place it is on EA, but beyond that it's down to whoever has made the site.
Personally I think some censorship is necessary because of the cruelty some people are capable of. It might not be right from a technical standpoint, but to me if someone is saying something that is widely considered to be hurtful or offensive then their content should be removed because a community should be as friendly, safe and welcoming as possible.
Just deleting posts because someone doesn't like the content and hasn't actually said anything hurtful though - yeah, that's plum and I will wholeheartedly agree that is censorship we don't need because it just encourages more anger and frustration.
Random question, if females are usually checked to get pregnant. And your female woohoos a random town with try for baby, will they both get pregnant...
From what I saw in the options you could do one or the other but not both. In other words if she can get pregnant she can't cause pregnancy. Also they said that only the sims you adjust to have these options would have them so a random townie wouldn't. I hope that helps!
I can see this getting very confusing to players. Having to keep a list of the one who can get pregnant and ones who can't...it could get very confusing especially if they forget. Then complaints their Sims can no longer get pregnant because they forgot they changed an option on a townie.
I don't play rotational but I could see that happening! I had kind of wished for the ability to do both but I'm happy with what they've given us. I hope it's not too much of an issue for those who rotate their gameplay!
Yes, we have enough to deal with on rotation and those relationship culls and family tree culls.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Um....has EA been doing midnight Ninja raids on Word Press or something?
"People really love to explore 'failure states. In fact, the failure states are really much more interesting than the success states." ~ Will Wright
For those saying EA or Maxis or the Sims are censoring you I don't think you are seeing the whole picture. They aren't deleting threads because someone says they don't like the patch. They are deleting them when it becomes insulting and rude. I'm not saying you were being insulting or rude, but someone in the thread was and enough so that the MODs felt the need to remove the discussion. If things are kept civilized then I don't think there will be an issue. The biggest problem is that people feel so strongly about their side of things that sometimes it spills over.
They are taking down threads because someone says they don't like the patch.
I have not seen that. Even this thread has crossed the line a few times and it's still standing. If it gets deleted it won't be because of the OP but other comments that have been made.
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Does EA have that kind of influence outside of this website?
I can understand EA having a say in what is put up here since this is their place and they've put up rules that, while make sense, do technically infringe on someone's freedom of speech but I haven't heard of EA actively censoring someone's external blog.
The fan sites have been censoring these comments too.
But isn't that on the operators of those fan sites rather than EA directly?
Yes. It's still censorship.
It is, but that's not down to EA.
And? This forum is for discussing the game.
It's like giving someone an apple, telling them to eat it, then killing them because they ate the apple.
I feel like The Sims 4 is no longer "play your own way", but "think the way you're intended to think". I'm very happy about all of those that are enjoying the update, however I couldn't exactly get into the game after today, after I got to understand that one side of simmers will always get censored.
1. The game will never have cultural traditions, or religion. Mere mention of these things will shut your thread down (as well as this one eventually, probably. Will try to take pictures of the thread beforehand though).
2. You're bad, evil, or backwards if you are uncomfortable with the new gender settings. That is what the forum will label you. Poland didn't even do a write up about the new update and everyone is bashing the country, instead of carefully considering the views and needs of other countries.
3. Just asking "can updates be optional?" got my thread deleted. Seriously. I suppose updates will never be optional, no matter how major the change is.
4. Tried contacting customer support, they said that it's a developer issue and if an update upsets me I should come and post here, however posting here gets the threads deleted.
Overall I feel like the more conservative simmers are not welcome on the forums or in game. Even if you're rather open minded and just not too comfortable with, for example, two men being able to have a baby, you have no way to take those options out of your game.
After reading the first thread I saw on this patch, today, where people said you could toggle off some things, I went back into my game and looked at the gameplay settings and didn't find anywhere where I could toggle off anything other than what was there prior to the patch. Then I decided to get into CAS and have a look at things. I did take time to read the patch notes, too, before I played my game. In creating a new Sim, underneath the traditional symbols for male and female, there is a set of ellipses dots (…). If you click on that, you'll see options. You can set a Sim to get pregnant: Yes; No and I vaguely recall a third option which I think was Never, but don't quote me on that. You can also set that Sim (mine was a female that came up automatically) to feminine; masculine and a few other choices. From the notes I recall that this will only affect the Sims you create, not the townies. Since EA opted to do it this way, that allows the rest of us, who aren't in support of this twist, to continue to play our game as if this option didn't exist. I'm perfectly okay with that. Really.
I'm a very conservative, religious individual, so I get where you're coming from. I'm also very much into biology (inasmuch as I got an A in it back in school) and there is no way in Zzyzx two males will ever create a life between them, unless one is cloned. But, some enjoy their dystopia. This will make them happy and enjoy the game. In my not-so-humble opinion, so long as it won't splash into my personal game play style, why not let the others have their way on this?
Her post isn't about the gameplay in this patch as much as it is about how she is being censored and hated for saying she isn't in love with the patch. I know several patches that made me very disappointed but being it's about gender neutral clothing others take it she's against them when she's not. Personally, I'm disappointed we don't have toddles in two years and they spent so much time (they said a year) making this happen when I still have bugs and can't play because of them and don't have toddlers. I'm happy they made things optional but not happy where their priorities are.
I feel exactly the same. To be quite honest I am baffled why they prioritised this over bug fixes, toddlers and addressing the complaints that culling and ineffective traits ruin the game.
In the scheme of things, there were more important things to spend a year working on in my opinion.
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Your right to free speech ended once you clicked on "I accept the Terms and Agreement"
Guess what's in those Terms and Agreements you signed to use these forums? You can't talk about Religion or politics, or Harass other players.
For those saying EA or Maxis or the Sims are censoring you I don't think you are seeing the whole picture. They aren't deleting threads because someone says they don't like the patch. They are deleting them when it becomes insulting and rude. I'm not saying you were being insulting or rude, but someone in the thread was and enough so that the MODs felt the need to remove the discussion. If things are kept civilized then I don't think there will be an issue. The biggest problem is that people feel so strongly about their side of things that sometimes it spills over.
They are taking down threads because someone says they don't like the patch.
I have not seen that. Even this thread has crossed the line a few times and it's still standing. If it gets deleted it won't be because of the OP but other comments that have been made.
The OP posted somewhere in this thread about an example. NO-ONE had replied and the moderators were threatening to take it down.
I'm pretty sure the moderators aren't on currently.
But that's the right we're being denied on these forums.
Privately-owned companies, such as Maxis, that aren't owned by the government do not have to follow the first amendment in a way. Some amendments can be ignored completely by privately-owned companies and the privately-owned companies can make their own rules, while most must be followed.
That doesn't make it right.
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
Your right to free speech ended once you clicked on "I accept the Terms and Agreement"
Guess what's in those Terms and Agreements you signed to use these forums? You can't talk about Religion or politics, or Harass other players.
I'm not harassing anyone. Free Speech is still supposed to be in place otherwise.
Comments
haha thanks I had a blonde moment XD
complete forum tutorial
Thank you @MDianaSanders for halloween-fying Golluma
OMG THAT RACIST TO BLONDE PEOPLE!
Hm, good point except I don't think that confusion would happen because the "Try for Baby" option just wouldn't show up unless the two Sims in question were complements in that department.
Censorship and the morality of such is the ENTIRE point of this thread.
I don't play rotational but I could see that happening! I had kind of wished for the ability to do both but I'm happy with what they've given us. I hope it's not too much of an issue for those who rotate their gameplay!
Twitch: ForgottenAmber
Discord: ForgottenAmber
#BobSquad
#BobSquadForever
Friend of Liam
EA isn't stopping you from expressing any opinion you like. You're free to post a blog with anything. You can even defame them.....you might get sued over it but you can say it.
As far as this site...think of EA like a parent who says....my house my rules.
EA IS stopping us from expressing opinions. We're not free to post a blog with anything, because it gets taken down. The difference is that if you are sued, your opinion is still out there, whereas censorship eradicates the opinion.
You've brought the discussion to the right place, climb on board!
Does EA have that kind of influence outside of this website?
I can understand EA having a say in what is put up here since this is their place and they've put up rules that, while make sense, do technically infringe on someone's freedom of speech (assuming said person wants to have the freedom to be a horrible person to somebody else / discuss topics that have been proven time and time again to be difficult to discuss without devolving into slanging matches / violate certain country laws) but I haven't heard of EA actively censoring someone's external blog.
The fan sites have been censoring these comments too.
Twitch: ForgottenAmber
Discord: ForgottenAmber
#BobSquad
#BobSquadForever
Friend of Liam
But isn't that on the operators of those fan sites rather than EA directly?
They are taking down threads because someone says they don't like the patch.
Yes. It's still censorship.
It is, but that's not down to EA.
Within the realms of this place it is on EA, but beyond that it's down to whoever has made the site.
Personally I think some censorship is necessary because of the cruelty some people are capable of. It might not be right from a technical standpoint, but to me if someone is saying something that is widely considered to be hurtful or offensive then their content should be removed because a community should be as friendly, safe and welcoming as possible.
Just deleting posts because someone doesn't like the content and hasn't actually said anything hurtful though - yeah, that's plum and I will wholeheartedly agree that is censorship we don't need because it just encourages more anger and frustration.
Yes, we have enough to deal with on rotation and those relationship culls and family tree culls.
Um....has EA been doing midnight Ninja raids on Word Press or something?
I have not seen that. Even this thread has crossed the line a few times and it's still standing. If it gets deleted it won't be because of the OP but other comments that have been made.
Twitch: ForgottenAmber
Discord: ForgottenAmber
#BobSquad
#BobSquadForever
Friend of Liam
And? This forum is for discussing the game.
It's like giving someone an apple, telling them to eat it, then killing them because they ate the apple.
I feel exactly the same. To be quite honest I am baffled why they prioritised this over bug fixes, toddlers and addressing the complaints that culling and ineffective traits ruin the game.
In the scheme of things, there were more important things to spend a year working on in my opinion.
Your right to free speech ended once you clicked on "I accept the Terms and Agreement"
Guess what's in those Terms and Agreements you signed to use these forums? You can't talk about Religion or politics, or Harass other players.
The OP posted somewhere in this thread about an example. NO-ONE had replied and the moderators were threatening to take it down.
I'm pretty sure the moderators aren't on currently.
I'm not harassing anyone. Free Speech is still supposed to be in place otherwise.