z929669

Just a quick point about 'evolution' in response to some of Mono's and SRB's comments: Evolution cannot 'stop', and it has no 'purpose' at all. It is a result of random and not 'chosen' effects. It simply represents the phenotypic result(s) of some genetic event(s) due to some selective pressure. Humans do subvert natural selection, since we impose artificial selective pressures ... but make no mistake: evolution is still progressing. We are just incorporating artificial selective pressures that have, as yet, unseen evolutionary effects. Humans are messing with all kinds of dials that say "DON'T TOUCH!", and we here may never know the true ramifications ;) Back to the original topic though: I have seen a lot of good points about the craziness of PC these days. It is socially fashionable to stand up for anything or anyone that could fall into the 'minority'. Social media and mobile devices really have made it so easy for us all to be social heroes (and Mother Teresa wannabees) ... never mind how we REALLY think or behave. We're all looking for a new group to follow and fighting to be of the most influence. I think a lot of people are simply disingenuous in so many ways ... such silly creatures we are! Animals with relatively small but varying --and sometimes significant-- capacity to perform logical computations! Back to the argument of altruism! (or you could say, pathological altruism, with is what I think Sparrow is alluding). Does altruism actually exist in its own right? ... or is it really a form of selfishness at individual, and possibly kin levels? Mono: I trust you will have much to say on this topic!

Agree elenhil ... kids represent the unbiased nature of humanity, and they are inherently unreasonable for at least a few years (possibly the most important and ingrained part of social development). Agree SRB ... humanity has largely countered evolution by way of natural selection; however, our nature represents millions of years of evolution, and Homo sapiens sapiens are all but unchanged since they arose from Homo erectus (arguably, of course), and both of these exhibited similar sexual dimorphism with regard to social roles. It will take a million years or more to wash that out of our genes ;) ... and I doubt the Earth can support our twisting of the natural order due to the process of farming and fertilization alone, not to mention all of the other unsustainable 'cheats' humanity has undertaken.

You are inferring the old biology vs environment argument. I think it is reasonable to say that each contributes significantly. Therefore, generally speaking, women are biologically predisposed to nurture and child care, while men are biologically predisposed to protection and procurement. Environment and behavior reinforce these biological tendencies ... hmmm, are such environmental reinforcements largely governed by biology (e.g., hormones). It's reasonable to conclude that they are. We are all largely victims of our biology, and society reinforces these behaviors, I think ;) ... but feminism and social justice represent environmental pressures against the behavioral 'norm' I think. Which is why I think it is so difficult to swim against the biological tide. It can be done, but at uncertain cost.

@Grant & baronaatista I can drink to both of those comments

This is the Banter Inn. A perfect forum for such discussions. It has nothing at all to do with STEP. We just have the sense to host such a forum so that our members can vent and rant without having to log on as a member on some other forum. If anything, this strengthens our community by allowing everyone to express themselves. Modders are humans too. Express your opinion. It is valid due to the very fact of its existence. --------------- @Mono ... wow, you are philosophically beyond me, my friend. I am not inclined to spend the time it would take to properly critique your assertions or to back up my own ... I rely on my own logic and interpretation of the world around me. I do not need evidence to corroborate or refute my own experiences and observations, and I think that my conclusions are sound based upon the evidence. Women ARE more apt to nurture than men, just as men ARE more apt to commit violent acts than women. Isn't it obvious? Hasn't history demonstrated these facts for millennia? Indeed I say, it is so. Perhaps social influence does teach men to behave more man-like and women to behave more women-like (as defined by historical norms), but the root cause remains the same: varying levels of hormones like estrogen and testosterone (to name only a tiny fraction) that are associated with the sexes in predictable ways. It is, in fact, causal. Rather, social pressures are teaching us to ignore our biology, and it is not necessarily working out so well, IMO :) I think Sparrow has some good points, and so does SRB ... and Mono. It's complicated. Would that humans could think past their daily grind. Oh how much better the human world would be if we all put so much thought into social problems. The blinders are on, and the narrow-minded ultimately control the world. Why? Because it is easier. I am just calling it like I see it and nothing more ;)

@SRB Good points, all. I'm at odds with the feminist movement beginning at your "phase 2" or thereabouts. Women's suffrage and equal pay for equal role are one thing, but the trend of the movement to position family women into society as bread winners is another. Women now dominate the corporate workforce, and children are being raised by-and-large by daycare factories. Part of this is due to corporate dominance of industrial society, particularly in the US, but much of it is due to this crazy idea that women are equal to men (and the reverse, which is not often alluded). The sexes are NOT equal. One is no better than the other, sure, but the fact remains that it is a major fallacy of our society to posit that the genders are equal in all respects besides inherent value. The sexes are built differently due to the evolutionary advantage of being so (see sexual dimorphism), and I think that our societal roles should be largely reflective of our biological roles ... for the most part. There are always exceptions, which is fine. I am pretty traditional in that I think it is best for the family unit if the man goes out and earns the money while the woman stays home and teaches the kids to be proper people ... again, there are always exceptions. Just look at the increased age of mothers at first childbirth. Way up since the 70s. What's to blame? I think it is a combination of the feminist movement and corporate culture. I think careers are now more important to many women than family. And I think that individuals are far less respectful and respectable than they used to be, on average. I know I sort of sound like a Republican on this point ... eeeewwwwwww! I am proud to be a political nonconformist. Aspects of all party agendas are agreeable or disagreeable to me. Women are biologically engineered to bear and raise children, and on average, they are temperamentally much better equipped to do so. Men are, on average, physically and temperamentally better equipped to protect and procure (... and commit violent acts, BTW). In much of Europe, women get paid vacation for a full year to bear and begin the raising of their children ... not so in the US. Big problem. We promote the idea of gender equality in all respects. Corporations generally win, families (and society) generally lose. I really think that the general deviation from this fundamental sexually-dimorphic role playing marks one hallmark of the downfall of modern society. People in modern society are more selfish, self-important, individualistic, and narcissistic than ever before, particularly in the US. Again, corporate culture may be the major vehicle of this problem at the core. I am all for equal human rights, but I suppose I disagree with the idea that we're all equal and that we all should espouse the idea that we should be competing for everything at the same level ;)

Well, I'm an 'older' white male, and I can say for sure that I feel inherently judged as 'guilty' for being so. I deem all 'groups' as potentially dangerous and most people as 'sheep' desperately yearning for some group to which they can affiliate to bolster their sense of belonging and self esteem. Don't get me wrong ---not all groups are 'bad'. STEP is a group, but I feel like we are NOT pushing a social agenda or targeting any other groups --these are the groups I have a problem with. I am proudly UNaffiliated with any such group (scientific creationists, American Atheists, religions, churches, social justice, LGBT, BLM, Greenpeace, feminists, white nationalists, Democrats, Republicans ... gag me with a fork). They are all group manifestations of low self esteem/awareness, IMHO. I think all movement-oriented groups are doomed to bureaucratic 'drift' and 'distortion' from their original purpose --even if that purpose began with noble intentions. I think it's really narrow minded for anyone to affiliate with a particular social movement or group agenda ... unless entertainment is the sole motivator (dancing, D&D, bridge, sports, etc.). While I think all people should have equal rights, I also think that feminism was the beginning of the end. Humans need their mothers when they are developing their personalities. Fathers are --on average-- pretty worthless at nurture. When moms mostly decided that they should have their own careers to prop up their egos to compete with men, the kids all began paying for it. The result is a bunch of wandering idiots without any sense of self or center or independence. A world of mostly judgemental egotists hiding behind power and achievement and narcissism. EDIT: to clarify, as it was pointed out to me that it may sound like I am bashing women above as the "wandering idiots". I am most definitely NOT. I am referring to our society as an increased number of insecure, ill-informed, narcissistic individuals that were largely raised by strangers in daycare because both their mother and father were too busy focusing on the goals of ambition ... propping up their careers for the sake of little more than ego and the thought that happiness is achieved by impressing society. This does not apply to single moms or families that are trying to make ends meet! I am specifically talking about the increasing numbers of feministic women that make competing with men a self-defining priority in their lives ... at the expense of familial stability in exchange for prestige and ego-stroking ... just like a man. Isn't it bad enough already that roughly half of our society has traditionally been like this? Adding women to that mix means that they are not able to as effectively balance the scales with responsibility and grounding as has traditionally been the case ... i am generalizing with all of this speak, yes, so don't think I am speaking about YOU! This is mainly a problem I personally see with US culture and Western culture in general. Capitalism and corporate influence as the primary drivers of social stratification. I gave up on humanity long ago, but I really like some people :)

The site css on the server houses those elements. Skip H5 if you don't like it and use H6. The underlines serve a purpose in various guides.

OK, got it ... to each his own then ;)

OK, I can understand that ;) Thanks

"Water", meaning Sparrow's mod? If you can name that texture, maybe we can check and mention this to him, especially if it is an unaltered vanilla normal that somehow snuck into his mod.

Can't really say any of you is 'wrong', but I have never had any issue with MO ticking/unticking anything without me doing so explicitly when switching/creating profiles. I understand that it may be a bit noisy if you have many different profile-specific versions of mods installed, but when switching profiles, in left pane, all ticked mods appear first in the profile-specific order I have set, and unticked mods follow. I run LOOT after switching profiles each time (I "OCD" running LOOT, since it is so easy). I would MUCH rather use profiles than multiple installs, personally :) I also don't see any benefit in "backing up" load order ... isn't that info tied to and saved in the profile?? If not, isn't it simple to run LOOT each time profiles or plugin list changes? Am I missing something fundamental, or are we just dealing with personal preferences here?

So were you able to see your texture after changing your install order (or priority order if using MO)?

Using multiple instances of MO is unnecessary. Use profiles. Start with your master package list of downloaded mods in the right pane (applicable to all profiles) and begin installing/prioritizing these for your default/base profile. Get that totally installed/verified/finalized, and then begin work on a second profile. If mod options differ between profiles, simply reinstall the applicable mod with different options under a different name ("WAF" becomes "WAF - Requiem", for example), and tick/untick the appropriate version in the left pane for the corresponding profile. This way, you have some redundancy at the mod level rather than nearly 100%. Also much simpler to manage. I have many profile-specific versions of some mods installed, depending on the profile context, and it works as it should. Backing up load order also seems unnecessary unless custom rules vary between profiles. Just run LOOT each time you load a different profile. When done properly (i.e., no human error involved), then this method is reliable ... MO does its job correctly.

OK, thanks for confirming ... take your time, by all means ;)

the MO mod page has basic info on initial setup, so I think that is fine, too. Adding in more info about a particular use case (e.g., reconfiguring mod packages) arguably sets a precedent to include minutia for all kinds of things on mod pages, so I can see Grant's POV. ... it may be better not to reactively make changes based on the POV of a single person about a single use case ;)

Agree that a QSG could be useful if anyone wants to create it. I see the Mod page as the ideal place for this (with link to main guide). Neb's instruction would fit in nicely with all other MO FAQ

@Neb Yes the mod page is what I meant, since that is our basic instruction for installing/using MO. Either way, I don't think instructions on package reconfiguration through MO is really necessary anywhere but in the main MO guide, since MO walks the user through this when it encounters non-standard package configs. Maybe a note when there is something really wierd though, like a plugin residing in some package subfolder, etc.

If a mod is packaged in an unexpected way, MO will bring up the manual selection window during install. I vote to remove all such notes from mod pages and ensure that generic instructions for this type of install is in the MO quick-start guide ... this would resolve the consistency issue.

Correct. Mod suggestions get their own topics, period ... that way each mod gets proper attention (and we benefit from new mod info). mention of other competing mods, like "I prefer this over that" is fine, but actual suggestions are a perfect opportunity to either create the new mod topic or post over there if it already exists. Also, MAs don't need to put down other MAs' work ... they only need to promote their own. In fact, I would only lurk to answer open questions and correct false assumptions without even broaching others' work ;)

Should we be looking for this at the Assimilation Lab? Still in dev? You will post link when available?

Wiki is loading fine for me now ... thanks!

Slowness pertains only to the wiki and has to do with recent spike in wiki-page requests. As s4n stated, a fix is under development for implementation this weekend, which should resolve the wiki issue until we ramp up a new server later this year.

It is customizable but would require editing the forum PHP code directly I think. Not something we plan on implementing unless when we move to upgrade the forum software, which will not be for awhile.

We removed edit post ability, due to abuse on several occasions by multiple members. This encourages more careful posting, anyway. Tech plans to post an announcement with some details on the change and resolution for those with a legitimate need.