FANDOM


Talk:Same-sex relationship
This is a page for discussing improvements to Same-sex relationship

Talk pages are used to discuss changes or improvements to the article or page only. Please use the game discussions forum for game discussions, help desk for game questions, or the off-topic forum for general conversations.

Replacement filing cabinet
Archives

1

Jason Cleveland's Gender PreferenceEdit

Even though Jason's gender preference is 0.0 for females and 0.1 for males like Kent Capp, how come it took me much longer to alter Jason's gender preference? C.Syde65 (talk) 01:28, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

That's because Jason starts out married to a woman and has a teenage son with her. Kent starts out single, and living with one of his sisters (Regan Capp) and Regan's husband Cornwall (nè Dane. The Capps are a matriarchial family that has married into patriarchial families.)
If you made Marissa die right away or move out to the bin then cancelled her, then you have Geoff Rutherford invite Jason a lot and flirt with him a lot, it could actually be easier to alter said gender preference. Kaiko Mikkusu (talk) 13:40, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Joined Union/Marriage GlitchEdit

I was playing The Sims 2, and my Sim had two different wants: to marry a Sim normally and have a Joined Union. I locked the marriage want, and made my Sim have a Joined Union...but it said that I fufilled the Marriage want, but I didn't! I fixed this though, by making my Sim break up and marry normally. The Joined Union want was fufilled. It's a bit odd to me, but I'm glad I fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.142.67 (talkcontribs) 21:54 17 July 2014 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

"Confess attraction" statementEdit

I'm noticing that there seems to be some contention about the "Confess Attraction" entry in the Problems faced by Sims in same-sex relationships section of the article. I don't think that either the editor(s) removing the information, or Icemandeaf, who has reverted that removal on both occasions, is operating in the wrong. However, I wonder whether the content should remain on the page or whether it should be removed as it is not confirmed. If the content is on the page, on whom does the onus fall to prove that the content is or is not correct? Does the fact that the information exists there make it the responsibility of someone to disprove it, or should some positive proof be necessary before that information can be claimed? -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 18:09, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

If I had the game installed on my computer, I would check to see if that was true (because it would be easy enough to try out and compare between the different types of relationships). I personally feel that if confirmation is being requested that there should be some sort of proof brought forth before it is removed. Of course, the proof could be for or against the statement. It almost makes me want to install the game back on my computer and try out the "confess attraction" to see if there is any validity to the statement. I just don't know I took it off in the first place -- I think it was due to memory limits. If I can test it out, I will also test the CAS statement as well. – Icemandeaf (talk) 18:50, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
The statement also suffers from "weasel words" ("...it generally gets a negative reaction...") and an incorrect point-of-view which need to be corrected, if we choose to keep it. But I don't know if I necessarily agree that we should need proof to remove it. After all, if I edit the article and make a false claim, isn't the responsibility on me to back up that information? What if someone edits the article and makes a claim that can't be easily refuted? If you can't come up with proof that a statement is false, does that automatically make the statement true? -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 19:07, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that the statement needs to have some working if it is kept. I also agree that proof should fall on the editor, but I have no idea who it was. However, I don't think that this claim would be difficult to refute, which is why I reverted the removals because there wasn't any support for removing it. "No one has confirmed the statement is true in a long time, so it should be removed" doesn't support removal, but rather seems to be an excuse to remove a claim that someone disagrees with. In any case, I am installing the game now to test out the claim for myself. Then we can have some hard proof for the statement(s). – Icemandeaf (talk) 19:32, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
After doing some testing, I haven't found proof to support either statements needing confirmation (confess attraction or CAS relationship scores) as it seems to be the same for either types of relationships. In fact, the reactions to confessing attraction seems to be more about the relation to the Sim confessing to rather than the type of relation confessing about. I would suggest that the statements be removed. What do you think? – Icemandeaf (talk) 21:12, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
Well considering that you've done some testing and haven't found proof to support either of these statements needing confirmation, I'd lean towards removing the said information due to the lack of evidence that this information is correct. If it turns out that the said information is correct, which I doubt, then I'm sure it can be readded then, but until further evidence shows up, I suggest that the statements should be removed. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:19, January 2, 2017 (UTC)