Suggestions

Not someone who has visual triggers but it costs nothing to support implementing a tool that would help others feel more comfortable on the silly dragon game. I'm not sure about the second suggestion being feasible, but toggling should be looked at - there's a demand for it!

In the meantime, I've heard you can get extensions on your browser that will block elements, maybe that could help folks.

[quote name="Jemadar" date="2024-05-08 20:40:02" ] As someone who has adblocked spider images, yes, I think about the spiders when I see those item names in my hoard/game database, but I can sort of force my own brain to 'blur' the images. I can 'replace' the spider with another image, one that is vague and doesn't affect me. Re: sheltering has real world impacts. I have to say people using this to back up their no support has always bothered me. Yes, someone might make their phobia worse by 'sheltering' themselves, but, unless you are a close friend or relative (or their therapist), it is not any of your business if they do. You are not my keeper. (just to note, the you is a general you, I am not talking directly at anyone) There are a great many things that people can do that can 'harm them' in the long run, such as drinking too much caffeine, as mentioned up thread, but, again, that is between them and their close friends/relatives, and/or various doctors. It isn't up to me to go up to a perfect stranger at a coffee shop and go 'you are drinking too much coffee, it is going to hurt you in the long run, so you shouldn't drink any more' I do, however, agree that this is something that could have an impact on site performance, and if it is judged too impactful, then it would be best to not have it. Barring that, if it isn't going to negatively impact site performance, then I don't really see a reason to NOT have it. Yes, it might take years to implement, no it won't be able to block user generated images (though it would be nice to have the ability to turn off signatures and maybe be able to block the [ img ] tag, so that it won't show up, along with a collapsible spoiler tag), but I am willing to wait, and I understand the second. [/quote] I think it's pretty obvious that implementing things does affect everyone else, especially something like this, because not only do we have to factor in the amount of time it would take to develop this (which could be spent implementing something else that does not explicitly remove pieces of the site's primary product: the art), but this particular thing would take maintenance. Whenever a new item is added, it would have to be evaluated for each "category" for blocking. Of course, some ways of implementing a thing like this would be less work than others. But in every single case constant maintenance and updating would be required to keep it useful. I'm not necessarily for or against this, as I definitely fall in the camp of "I don't expect the staff to fix my problems" or make me more comfortable or something. This is a game that thousands of people play - and I'm sure that some people share the same issues that I do when it comes to what gives me that gross visceral reaction, so it's not like something like this would be added just for me - but I'd really much rather they work on new art and mechanics to add to the game that everyone can and will want to use. I have several ways I can avoid or otherwise manage my own problems myself. I don't require staff to do that for me. And, actually, I don't want them to. I really can protect my own feelings. But I would certainly fall into the "against" camp if it caused lag.

[quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-08 23:41:58" ] [quote name="Jemadar" date="2024-05-08 20:40:02" ] As someone who has adblocked spider images, yes, I think about the spiders when I see those item names in my hoard/game database, but I can sort of force my own brain to 'blur' the images. I can 'replace' the spider with another image, one that is vague and doesn't affect me. Re: sheltering has real world impacts. I have to say people using this to back up their no support has always bothered me. Yes, someone might make their phobia worse by 'sheltering' themselves, but, unless you are a close friend or relative (or their therapist), it is not any of your business if they do. You are not my keeper. (just to note, the you is a general you, I am not talking directly at anyone) There are a great many things that people can do that can 'harm them' in the long run, such as drinking too much caffeine, as mentioned up thread, but, again, that is between them and their close friends/relatives, and/or various doctors. It isn't up to me to go up to a perfect stranger at a coffee shop and go 'you are drinking too much coffee, it is going to hurt you in the long run, so you shouldn't drink any more' I do, however, agree that this is something that could have an impact on site performance, and if it is judged too impactful, then it would be best to not have it. Barring that, if it isn't going to negatively impact site performance, then I don't really see a reason to NOT have it. Yes, it might take years to implement, no it won't be able to block user generated images (though it would be nice to have the ability to turn off signatures and maybe be able to block the [ img ] tag, so that it won't show up, along with a collapsible spoiler tag), but I am willing to wait, and I understand the second. [/quote] I think it's pretty obvious that implementing things does affect everyone else, especially something like this, because not only do we have to factor in the amount of time it would take to develop this (which could be spent implementing something else that does not explicitly remove pieces of the site's primary product: the art), but this particular thing would take maintenance. Whenever a new item is added, it would have to be evaluated for each "category" for blocking. Of course, some ways of implementing a thing like this would be less work than others. But in every single case constant maintenance and updating would be required to keep it useful. I'm not necessarily for or against this, as I definitely fall in the camp of "I don't expect the staff to fix my problems" or make me more comfortable or something. This is a game that thousands of people play - and I'm sure that some people share the same issues that I do when it comes to what gives me that gross visceral reaction, so it's not like something like this would be added just for me - but I'd really much rather they work on new art and mechanics to add to the game that everyone can and will want to use. I have several ways I can avoid or otherwise manage my own problems myself. I don't require staff to do that for me. And, actually, I don't want them to. I really can protect my own feelings. But I would certainly fall into the "against" camp if it caused lag. [/quote] My preferred way of implementing this wouldn't necessarily be to create categories for each item, but rather have something where each art item done by the site has an internal ID (which items already do). On a page somewhere, there would be a field where players can input that ID, and the image would be filtered out. So, if I want to filter out item #123421, I just input that number into that field and all images associated with that ID would be blocked. So, in that case, the only 'maintenance' would be to basically make sure that new art assets have some sort of internal ID associated with them. Once the framework is in place, it is as simple as plugging in a number for it to work. (yes, there would be a bit more work, but I wouldn't think it would take much more work beyond what it already takes for the site to identify the individual assets and categorize them.) I don't need them to implement this either, as I am on PC and can use an adblock feature. However, I also wouldn't mind, because then I would be able to move computers, use different devices, whatever, without worrying about it as well. I can protect my own feelings as well. I just wouldn't mind additional tools to do so. I personally am willing to wait for new mechanics (something like this I feel wouldn't impact art, since it would most likely not have an art heavy interface), but I also realize that new mechanics are always hit or miss as well, so there is no guarantee that a new mechanic is something I would want to use. Just as I didn't need something like dragon likes to be implemented, because while it was a popular suggestion, it isn't something I use (I may have liked about 5 dragons, don't even know anymore).

[quote name="Churrell" date="2024-05-09 05:57:55" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-08 23:41:58" ] I'd really much rather they work on new art and mechanics to add to the game that everyone can and will want to use. [/quote] Maybe this is splitting hairs a little, but there’s almost nothing that everyone WILL want to use. I don’t interact with Dom/exalting, some people don’t use the forums, and every time a breed or gene drops there are people who go “I hate it and I’ll never use it.” It’s not like they should stop making breeds and genes because not everyone will want to use them, so how is this different? [/quote] It is splitting hairs. I'm not saying "no one will use this" because obviously some people will. But in comparison, significantly more people will want to use a new game feature. And, odds are, just about everyone will use it in the beginning. Like Arlo for example. Not nearly as many people want to use it now, but in the beginning it was almost everyone. The obvious difference is that there are a small number of people who don't like and won't use a new material update, and many people who don't like, for example, a gene, seem to come to like and use them over time. I don't think that's true of this update. Though I do like Jemadar's conception of it, and if that was how it worked (lag free) I have zero objections whatsoever. That would require probably as little maintenance of the staff as posible.

[quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-09 06:42:12" ] [quote name="Churrell" date="2024-05-09 05:57:55" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-08 23:41:58" ] I'd really much rather they work on new art and mechanics to add to the game that everyone can and will want to use. [/quote] Maybe this is splitting hairs a little, but there’s almost nothing that everyone WILL want to use. I don’t interact with Dom/exalting, some people don’t use the forums, and every time a breed or gene drops there are people who go “I hate it and I’ll never use it.” It’s not like they should stop making breeds and genes because not everyone will want to use them, so how is this different? [/quote] It is splitting hairs. I'm not saying "no one will use this" because obviously some people will. But in comparison, significantly more people will want to use a new game feature. And, odds are, just about everyone will use it in the beginning. Like Arlo for example. Not nearly as many people want to use it now, but in the beginning it was almost everyone. The obvious difference is that there are a small number of people who don't like and won't use a new material update, and many people who don't like, for example, a gene, seem to come to like and use them over time. I don't think that's true of this update. Though I do like Jemadar's conception of it, and if that was how it worked (lag free) I have zero objections whatsoever. That would require probably as little maintenance of the staff as posible. [/quote] I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. Every suggestion is dependent on how much support people have for it, this suggestion comes up quite a bit and gets a large amount of support every time, so I think that speaks for itself in terms of how many people would appreciate/use the feature. It's not like other mechanics are things Everyone wants and accessibility features are only for a few select people, nothing is for absolutely everyone and 'I don't think people want this' isn't really an argument against a feature since if it really is such a minority of people, it just wouldn't get enough support to be considered in the first place. The main thing the majority of players are interested in is the art and breed/gene/apparel releases and such anyways, which this doesn't interact with at all, mechanic suggestions are always things not everyone will use. And even if this isn't something where everyone would use it in the beginning either, it's something that would allow a lot of people to interact with everything else on the site more comfortably.. forever. It's a feature that won't get less use over time, in fact it would only be more useful to people if there were more eye types/genes/breeds added that people want to be able to filter. Why is this the one suggestion where it absolutely must come at no cost to the devs or have any maintenance or anything, I don't see people going to every other suggestion and saying 'ok but what if it requires occasional Maintenance or causes Lag' just because they wouldn't personally use the feature when there's no reason in the first place to believe that this suggestion would cause problems like that either. Plenty of sites have filtering systems without causing noticeable lag, I'm pretty sure the devs aren't known for adding features to the site that lag everything and then leaving those as is to forever continue to lag the site, if it causes noticeable lag they just wouldn't implement it or would change it if it causes problems, and of course they're going to prioritize content that more people will use and support, so why is this suggestion in particular the one where it seems like everyone is just trying to find excuses to not support it. There are people who cannot comfortably interact (or cannot interact at all) with aspects of the site, who would or may be able to do so with a simple filter being added, why are those people only allowed to be considered if it causes absolutely no problem or any slight minor inconvenience to anyone else. Everything already inherently caters to the majority of people, why does it have to be such a problem to allow people in some minority groups to be able to interact with things too. Accessibility stuff like this should just be normalized whenever it's possible, not only implemented when it's convenient and won't cause any issues at all.

[quote name="voidsnake" date="2024-05-09 10:14:39" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-09 06:42:12" ] [quote name="Churrell" date="2024-05-09 05:57:55" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-08 23:41:58" ] I'd really much rather they work on new art and mechanics to add to the game that everyone can and will want to use. [/quote] Maybe this is splitting hairs a little, but there’s almost nothing that everyone WILL want to use. I don’t interact with Dom/exalting, some people don’t use the forums, and every time a breed or gene drops there are people who go “I hate it and I’ll never use it.” It’s not like they should stop making breeds and genes because not everyone will want to use them, so how is this different? [/quote] It is splitting hairs. I'm not saying "no one will use this" because obviously some people will. But in comparison, significantly more people will want to use a new game feature. And, odds are, just about everyone will use it in the beginning. Like Arlo for example. Not nearly as many people want to use it now, but in the beginning it was almost everyone. The obvious difference is that there are a small number of people who don't like and won't use a new material update, and many people who don't like, for example, a gene, seem to come to like and use them over time. I don't think that's true of this update. Though I do like Jemadar's conception of it, and if that was how it worked (lag free) I have zero objections whatsoever. That would require probably as little maintenance of the staff as posible. [/quote] I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. Every suggestion is dependent on how much support people have for it, this suggestion comes up quite a bit and gets a large amount of support every time, so I think that speaks for itself in terms of how many people would appreciate/use the feature. It's not like other mechanics are things Everyone wants and accessibility features are only for a few select people, nothing is for absolutely everyone and 'I don't think people want this' isn't really an argument against a feature since if it really is such a minority of people, it just wouldn't get enough support to be considered in the first place. The main thing the majority of players are interested in is the art and breed/gene/apparel releases and such anyways, which this doesn't interact with at all, mechanic suggestions are always things not everyone will use. And even if this isn't something where everyone would use it in the beginning either, it's something that would allow a lot of people to interact with everything else on the site more comfortably.. forever. It's a feature that won't get less use over time, in fact it would only be more useful to people if there were more eye types/genes/breeds added that people want to be able to filter. Why is this the one suggestion where it absolutely must come at no cost to the devs or have any maintenance or anything, I don't see people going to every other suggestion and saying 'ok but what if it requires occasional Maintenance or causes Lag' just because they wouldn't personally use the feature when there's no reason in the first place to believe that this suggestion would cause problems like that either. Plenty of sites have filtering systems without causing noticeable lag, I'm pretty sure the devs aren't known for adding features to the site that lag everything and then leaving those as is to forever continue to lag the site, if it causes noticeable lag they just wouldn't implement it or would change it if it causes problems, and of course they're going to prioritize content that more people will use and support, so why is this suggestion in particular the one where it seems like everyone is just trying to find excuses to not support it. There are people who cannot comfortably interact (or cannot interact at all) with aspects of the site, who would or may be able to do so with a simple filter being added, why are those people only allowed to be considered if it causes absolutely no problem or any slight minor inconvenience to anyone else. Everything already inherently caters to the majority of people, why does it have to be such a problem to allow people in some minority groups to be able to interact with things too. Accessibility stuff like this should just be normalized whenever it's possible, not only implemented when it's convenient and won't cause any issues at all. [/quote] I don't know. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The number of people who would use an update does matter. I have looked through several threads like this, and one of the reasons it comes up "frequently" is because the same people come up frequently. There's nothing wrong with it being in the mind of the same people all the time, but I disagree about your philosophy on accessibility features. It is no one's responsibility to make my life easier because I maybe got dealt a different hand from you. And it's certainly not okay for me to inconvenience you. I'm of a different mind for stuff like coli, the bits of that which make it unusable for some people can be a good decision - better than this, because this is explicitly about [i]removing[/i] content (on personal preference - not, obviously, from the site at large).

[quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-09 11:00:25" ] [quote name="voidsnake" date="2024-05-09 10:14:39" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-09 06:42:12" ] [quote name="Churrell" date="2024-05-09 05:57:55" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-08 23:41:58" ] I'd really much rather they work on new art and mechanics to add to the game that everyone can and will want to use. [/quote] Maybe this is splitting hairs a little, but there’s almost nothing that everyone WILL want to use. I don’t interact with Dom/exalting, some people don’t use the forums, and every time a breed or gene drops there are people who go “I hate it and I’ll never use it.” It’s not like they should stop making breeds and genes because not everyone will want to use them, so how is this different? [/quote] It is splitting hairs. I'm not saying "no one will use this" because obviously some people will. But in comparison, significantly more people will want to use a new game feature. And, odds are, just about everyone will use it in the beginning. Like Arlo for example. Not nearly as many people want to use it now, but in the beginning it was almost everyone. The obvious difference is that there are a small number of people who don't like and won't use a new material update, and many people who don't like, for example, a gene, seem to come to like and use them over time. I don't think that's true of this update. Though I do like Jemadar's conception of it, and if that was how it worked (lag free) I have zero objections whatsoever. That would require probably as little maintenance of the staff as posible. [/quote] I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. Every suggestion is dependent on how much support people have for it, this suggestion comes up quite a bit and gets a large amount of support every time, so I think that speaks for itself in terms of how many people would appreciate/use the feature. It's not like other mechanics are things Everyone wants and accessibility features are only for a few select people, nothing is for absolutely everyone and 'I don't think people want this' isn't really an argument against a feature since if it really is such a minority of people, it just wouldn't get enough support to be considered in the first place. The main thing the majority of players are interested in is the art and breed/gene/apparel releases and such anyways, which this doesn't interact with at all, mechanic suggestions are always things not everyone will use. And even if this isn't something where everyone would use it in the beginning either, it's something that would allow a lot of people to interact with everything else on the site more comfortably.. forever. It's a feature that won't get less use over time, in fact it would only be more useful to people if there were more eye types/genes/breeds added that people want to be able to filter. Why is this the one suggestion where it absolutely must come at no cost to the devs or have any maintenance or anything, I don't see people going to every other suggestion and saying 'ok but what if it requires occasional Maintenance or causes Lag' just because they wouldn't personally use the feature when there's no reason in the first place to believe that this suggestion would cause problems like that either. Plenty of sites have filtering systems without causing noticeable lag, I'm pretty sure the devs aren't known for adding features to the site that lag everything and then leaving those as is to forever continue to lag the site, if it causes noticeable lag they just wouldn't implement it or would change it if it causes problems, and of course they're going to prioritize content that more people will use and support, so why is this suggestion in particular the one where it seems like everyone is just trying to find excuses to not support it. There are people who cannot comfortably interact (or cannot interact at all) with aspects of the site, who would or may be able to do so with a simple filter being added, why are those people only allowed to be considered if it causes absolutely no problem or any slight minor inconvenience to anyone else. Everything already inherently caters to the majority of people, why does it have to be such a problem to allow people in some minority groups to be able to interact with things too. Accessibility stuff like this should just be normalized whenever it's possible, not only implemented when it's convenient and won't cause any issues at all. [/quote] I don't know. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The number of people who would use an update does matter. I have looked through several threads like this, and one of the reasons it comes up "frequently" is because the same people come up frequently. There's nothing wrong with it being in the mind of the same people all the time, but I disagree about your philosophy on accessibility features. It is no one's responsibility to make my life easier because I maybe got dealt a different hand from you. And it's certainly not okay for me to inconvenience you. I'm of a different mind for stuff like coli, the bits of that which make it unusable for some people can be a good decision - better than this, because this is explicitly about [i]removing[/i] content (on personal preference - not, obviously, from the site at large). [/quote] ah yes because we sure wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone just because someone requires accommodations for anything. I guess people who require accommodations just don't get to have anything at all in society if it isn't convenient. Are you really of the mindset that people with visual impairment shouldn't get to use the internet at all because 'what if it costs Effort to make screen readers'? People with mobility impairments, guess they just can't go places because it would cost effort to build ramps instead of / in addition to stairs or do other things to help that? Accessibility is about making things usable for more people. It's not always just a difference of slightly increasing someone's comfort. Maybe you can manage yourself well enough to use the site without filters, but that isn't true for everyone, people could have phobias/triggers or visual sensitivity or such that completely prevent them from using the site without filters. And I imagine most of the people the site becomes completely unusable for without a filtering system aren't here to support the idea or argue for it because they can't be on the site or forums in the first place, because currently there are no filters, and maybe the thought of seeing triggering profiles they haven't blocked yet even just once in order to know to block the profile image is just too much to deal with and makes the forums unusable. Or maybe the overall experience of not being able to use features like breeding or sharing dragons is so triggering without filters those people just left the site completely already. And those people who aren't able to interact with things because of lack of accessibility features often don't have many other things to go do instead (because of how bad accessibility is in most places) and maybe by adding filtering here, some people would have a singular place to feel safe and enjoy something and be included instead of constantly feeling like they have to endure all of their problems by themselves and constantly suffer and never enjoy anything peacefully just because they don't want to inconvenience anyone. If accessibility options are only something implemented when it's most convenient, people who actually need accommodations to interact with things just aren't able to do much at all in life, and I think that's a problem.

[quote name="voidsnake" date="2024-05-09 11:37:45" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-09 11:00:25" ] [quote name="voidsnake" date="2024-05-09 10:14:39" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-09 06:42:12" ] [quote name="Churrell" date="2024-05-09 05:57:55" ] [quote name="Almedha" date="2024-05-08 23:41:58" ] I'd really much rather they work on new art and mechanics to add to the game that everyone can and will want to use. [/quote] Maybe this is splitting hairs a little, but there’s almost nothing that everyone WILL want to use. I don’t interact with Dom/exalting, some people don’t use the forums, and every time a breed or gene drops there are people who go “I hate it and I’ll never use it.” It’s not like they should stop making breeds and genes because not everyone will want to use them, so how is this different? [/quote] It is splitting hairs. I'm not saying "no one will use this" because obviously some people will. But in comparison, significantly more people will want to use a new game feature. And, odds are, just about everyone will use it in the beginning. Like Arlo for example. Not nearly as many people want to use it now, but in the beginning it was almost everyone. The obvious difference is that there are a small number of people who don't like and won't use a new material update, and many people who don't like, for example, a gene, seem to come to like and use them over time. I don't think that's true of this update. Though I do like Jemadar's conception of it, and if that was how it worked (lag free) I have zero objections whatsoever. That would require probably as little maintenance of the staff as posible. [/quote] I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. Every suggestion is dependent on how much support people have for it, this suggestion comes up quite a bit and gets a large amount of support every time, so I think that speaks for itself in terms of how many people would appreciate/use the feature. It's not like other mechanics are things Everyone wants and accessibility features are only for a few select people, nothing is for absolutely everyone and 'I don't think people want this' isn't really an argument against a feature since if it really is such a minority of people, it just wouldn't get enough support to be considered in the first place. The main thing the majority of players are interested in is the art and breed/gene/apparel releases and such anyways, which this doesn't interact with at all, mechanic suggestions are always things not everyone will use. And even if this isn't something where everyone would use it in the beginning either, it's something that would allow a lot of people to interact with everything else on the site more comfortably.. forever. It's a feature that won't get less use over time, in fact it would only be more useful to people if there were more eye types/genes/breeds added that people want to be able to filter. Why is this the one suggestion where it absolutely must come at no cost to the devs or have any maintenance or anything, I don't see people going to every other suggestion and saying 'ok but what if it requires occasional Maintenance or causes Lag' just because they wouldn't personally use the feature when there's no reason in the first place to believe that this suggestion would cause problems like that either. Plenty of sites have filtering systems without causing noticeable lag, I'm pretty sure the devs aren't known for adding features to the site that lag everything and then leaving those as is to forever continue to lag the site, if it causes noticeable lag they just wouldn't implement it or would change it if it causes problems, and of course they're going to prioritize content that more people will use and support, so why is this suggestion in particular the one where it seems like everyone is just trying to find excuses to not support it. There are people who cannot comfortably interact (or cannot interact at all) with aspects of the site, who would or may be able to do so with a simple filter being added, why are those people only allowed to be considered if it causes absolutely no problem or any slight minor inconvenience to anyone else. Everything already inherently caters to the majority of people, why does it have to be such a problem to allow people in some minority groups to be able to interact with things too. Accessibility stuff like this should just be normalized whenever it's possible, not only implemented when it's convenient and won't cause any issues at all. [/quote] I don't know. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The number of people who would use an update does matter. I have looked through several threads like this, and one of the reasons it comes up "frequently" is because the same people come up frequently. There's nothing wrong with it being in the mind of the same people all the time, but I disagree about your philosophy on accessibility features. It is no one's responsibility to make my life easier because I maybe got dealt a different hand from you. And it's certainly not okay for me to inconvenience you. I'm of a different mind for stuff like coli, the bits of that which make it unusable for some people can be a good decision - better than this, because this is explicitly about [i]removing[/i] content (on personal preference - not, obviously, from the site at large). [/quote] ah yes because we sure wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone just because someone requires accommodations for anything. I guess people who require accommodations just don't get to have anything at all in society if it isn't convenient. Are you really of the mindset that people with visual impairment shouldn't get to use the internet at all because 'what if it costs Effort to make screen readers'? People with mobility impairments, guess they just can't go places because it would cost effort to build ramps instead of / in addition to stairs or do other things to help that? Accessibility is about making things usable for more people. It's not always just a difference of slightly increasing someone's comfort. Maybe you can manage yourself well enough to use the site without filters, but that isn't true for everyone, people could have phobias/triggers or visual sensitivity or such that completely prevent them from using the site without filters. And I imagine most of the people the site becomes completely unusable for without a filtering system aren't here to support the idea or argue for it because they can't be on the site or forums in the first place, because currently there are no filters, and maybe the thought of seeing triggering profiles they haven't blocked yet even just once in order to know to block the profile image is just too much to deal with and makes the forums unusable. Or maybe the overall experience of not being able to use features like breeding or sharing dragons is so triggering without filters those people just left the site completely already. And those people who aren't able to interact with things because of lack of accessibility features often don't have many other things to go do instead (because of how bad accessibility is in most places) and maybe by adding filtering here, some people would have a singular place to feel safe and enjoy something and be included instead of constantly feeling like they have to endure all of their problems by themselves and constantly suffer and never enjoy anything peacefully just because they don't want to inconvenience anyone. If accessibility options are only something implemented when it's most convenient, people who actually need accommodations to interact with things just aren't able to do much at all in life, and I think that's a problem. [/quote] I don't appreciate the hyperbole. I never said any of those things, so I won't engage further.