Red Iron Crown Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Cubic octagonal is actually correct practically. The top facing side is octagonal. The side is cubic. IE four sides. A 3d shape of this sort is defined by the characteristics of multiple 2d shapes to make it up from the various dimensions it holds. If it were octagonal/octagonal it would be s spherical object with faces made up of nothing but octagonal faces.There is nothing octagonal about the cubic octagonal strut. It is a simple 6-sided cube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arugela Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Octagonal strut has 8 sides. It's an octagon on the top and a cube on the side. I just looked at it in game.http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii613/PicsMe101/Screenshot%20from%202015-03-09%20130621_zpsmjt0zqcy.png' alt='Screenshot%20from%202015-03-09%20130621_zpsmjt0zqcy.png'> Edited March 9, 2015 by Arugela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) That's a completely different part. Cubic octagonal strut is this: Edited March 9, 2015 by Red Iron Crown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flixxbeatz Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 THIS is an issue? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Accusing those of making suggestion of having some agenda = Not OKI freely admit that I have an agenda when agreeing with such suggestions, that agenda being a more equitable experience for players of the game.EDIT: Also, this discussion isn't limited to KSP, apparently. Look at the wikipedia talk page on human spaceflight.Telling. I personally think "crewed" is a better term considering Kerbals are not humans and that "crewed" is more gender-neutral than "manned" in my perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuoDex Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm all for more references to females in part and contract descriptions, but "manned" is really a non-issue in my opinion. The dictionary meaning is quite clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenfire32 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 It's become generally accepted that "Manned" and "Mankind" is genderless.Sort of like how a lot of females preferred to be called "Actors" instead of "Actresses."Also, it's not a big deal. Being politically correct because you might offend someone isn't necessarily the right course of action. Some people get offended by things they have no business being offended by, know what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norpo Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Telling. I personally think "crewed" is a better term considering Kerbals are not humans and that "crewed" is more gender-neutral than "manned" in my perception.True, crewed is species-neutral, which makes it more proper.Really, I think it comes down to this:Manned is more common in the spaceflight field, (and possibly in general)Crewed is the "correct" term, which applies to Kerbals (not being human)Perhaps we should re-name this thread "Use more species-neutral language?" There are arguments for both, one being that for "manned" is used more often (and perhaps recognized easier), and crewed being the "right" word.From there it really goes down to taste. Edited March 9, 2015 by Norpo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm all for more references to females in part and contract descriptions, but "manned" is really a non-issue in my opinion. The dictionary meaning is quite clear.I too hold this opinion. The "manned", "unmanned" part of this suggestion perhaps can be put aside for now. We can look into the addition of more gender neutral language in parts description where it specifically use he/him/his when referring to a hypothetical person (this is something we do try to avoid in academic communities now ayway), or have a few of them being female if referring to specific character for better representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arugela Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) How about we call them gaggles and say it's gaggled or non gaggled.... 8/ Find the species then make up a stupid name(animals, plants? There are more than you could ever imagine). Or go with the fact it's based on space from a certain period of space history. Go with what was historically accurate to get the feel of this golden period(or periods depending on building upgrade or other variables if it makes a difference.) of real world space flight and stick with the games intended design. Go study it and find out what is appropriate and not for it's historical value(s). Edited March 9, 2015 by Arugela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coam Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Thinking in a completely irrelevant context:What about occupied/unoccupied?The specific reason this came to mind was the hypothetical addition of launching a living thing that isn't a Kerbal - much like we launched Laika and Enos here on earth. "Crewed" falls short in that case, because "crewed" (to me anyway) gives the impression that they are operating/flying the craft, whereas Laika and Enos were essentially live payloads on a ship outside their control.It's an unlikely situation that non-Kerbal occupants be added - especially since Kerbals are treated as expendable anyway, but the terminology swap did come to mind since occupied is appropriate in both contexts and simplifies the UI down to "This is a probe or empty ship, it's okay to delete" and "This has a living thing on it, please don't!". Edited March 9, 2015 by Coam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arugela Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Can we make all the seats look like toilet seats then!? 8DDoesn't crew also have a deeper technical meaning that doesn't always apply. Like the type of organization in a more specific sense(although not used as much anymore). I don't know if it's really as general as people think. I remember something about this vaguely.I think the term is, "expendable" and "non expendable." And it applies to manned vs unmanned in that order!! >< Edited March 9, 2015 by Arugela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Also, it's not a big deal. Being politically correct because you might offend someone isn't necessarily the right course of action. Some people get offended by things they have no business being offended by, know what I mean?I find the belief that someone is "offended" because they suggested a more equitable (in their perception) descriptor actually offensive, know what I mean? The OP probably isn't upset about this at all, but feels that the suggested descriptor is generally more equitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenfire32 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I find the belief that someone is "offended" because they suggested a more equitable (in their perception) descriptor actually offensive, know what I mean?Some time ago when I was a kid, some other kid's mom demanded that no one dress up in costume for a Halloween party because someone might dress up as a vampire which was offensive to her religion and by extension, her.Similarly, I had to stop being friends with kids who parent's thought Harry Potter was the devil's magic and took extreme offense at the mere existence of it.This is what I mean when I say:Some people get offended by things they have no business being offended by.There are people out there who will go out of their way to ruin the fun for everyone simply because they thought something was "offensive."Now, I'm not saying the OP is this kind of person. Not at all!All I'm saying is that those kinds of people exist, that this particular issue is really a non-issue, and that striving for "total-equality" for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings isn't necessarily the best approach in all instances.The phrase, "you can't please everyone," exists because there will always be someone who gets offended at something. Making everything "equal and unoffensive" runs the risk of offending people who view creativity in high regard. Likewise, making everything creative will only offend those who enjoy the "streamlined corporate style" of things.Know what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Know what I mean?Yes, and when these suggestions come up you also see arguments against them relying on such "slippery slopes" that "kill the fun" instead of reasoned debate on the actual merits of the suggestion. The fact that some people go overboard when it comes to these discussions, on both sides, I might add, is no reason to dismiss the idea as useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycix Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I find the belief that someone is "offended" because they suggested a more equitable (in their perception) descriptor actually offensive, know what I mean? The OP probably isn't upset about this at all, but feels that the suggested descriptor is generally more equitable.But that is not what the word is intended to mean at all. Manned/unmanned is already genderless and as equitable as it gets.Purposely avoiding it because some people like to get offended by things they have no business being offended by is silly.It's become generally accepted that "Manned" and "Mankind" is genderless.Sort of like how a lot of females preferred to be called "Actors" instead of "Actresses."Also, it's not a big deal. Being politically correct because you might offend someone isn't necessarily the right course of action. Some people get offended by things they have no business being offended by, know what I mean?This.-Offense is when someone speaks out a phrase purposely offensive to an individual or a group. There is an intention to offend, the offense is created and intended by the source.-Offense is not when someone uses a common word, and an individual or a group decides that the word is offensive to them. They have manufactured the offense; the offense is created and given intention by the offended, while the source has not created an offense nor has the source any intention to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ultrasquid Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 All I'm saying is that those kinds of people exist, that this particular issue is really a non-issue, and that striving for "total-equality" for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings isn't necessarily the best approach in all instances.It's not for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings, but rather because it's the right thing to do! Representation matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Rhodan Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Some people get offended by things they have no business being offended by.Like a lot of males when someone merely suggests that there could be some other way to name things or that women could take some of the places males occupy to 100%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenfire32 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Like a lot of males when someone merely suggests that there could be some other way to name things or that women could take some of the places males occupy to 100%?Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 But that is not what the word is intended to mean at all. Manned/unmanned is already genderless and as equitable as it gets.Purposely avoiding it because some people like to get offended by things they have no business being offended by is silly.I'm not offended by the use of "manned" at all, I'm suggesting that "crewed" is not only more equitable (given the root word in "manned") but also better reflects the fact that Kerbals aren't human. I believe OP feels the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycix Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) I'm not offended by the use of "manned" at all, I'm suggesting that "crewed" is not only more equitable (given the root word in "manned") but also better reflects the fact that Kerbals aren't human. I believe OP feels the same.I think that the second thing is a lot more viable!The question is, does this really need to be emphasized in such a way that it is worth it to go about systematically eradicating certain words from KSP?After all kerbals are comical representations of humans. Now opinions may vary, but I don't think it's worth the effort nor at all necessary to vanish certain words.As stated before I think the first thing is completely void, the even the root word should not be offensive to anyone other than people purposely looking for offense. Edited March 9, 2015 by Psycix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhawk Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 And people wonder why we haven't colonized Mars yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 The question is, does this really need to be emphasized in such a way that it it worth it to systematically eradicating certain words from KSP?I believe so. At the end of the day I don't think anyone would really notice unless they were purposely looking for something to be offended by.As stated before I think the first thing is completely void, the even the root word should not be offensive to anyone other than people purposely looking for offense.I don't think the point is void at all but then, I must have a different view of the English language than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kibble Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 IThe question is, does this really need to be emphasized in such a way that it is worth it to go about systematically eradicating certain words from KSP?After all kerbals are comical representations of humans. Now opinions may vary, but I don't think it's worth the effort nor at all necessary to vanish certain words.I think it is definitely worth the effort to remove words that offend a significant portion of the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbacusWizard Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm in favor of crewed/uncrewed; I already use those terms anyway when describing my spaceships. (The only problem is that when spoken aloud it sounds like "crude," but in written text that's not an issue.)I notice a lot of people defending "manned" as gender-neutral by citing a dictionary. Do you realize that dictionaries are descriptors of language, not authorities of language, and that they are imperfect descriptors as well? People use words to convey meaning, and other people observe those words and infer meaning; in an ideal case, the conveyed meaning and the inferred meaning are the same, but this is not always the case. Know your audience.You may use "manned" in a way that you think is gender-neutral, but are you sure that the reader and/or listener understands it (both consciously and subconsciously) as gender-neutral?Proposed experiment: describe a spaceship to the test subject. Include the word "manned" in the description, but do not say anything else about the spaceship's occupants. After the description, ask the subject various questions about the subject's thoughts regarding the occupants, including what gender they are. Repeat this test for many subjects, but for half of the subjects (chosen randomly), use the word "crewed" instead. Run statistics on result to determine if use of "manned" versus "crewed" correlates to any differences in subject's assumptions about occupants' gender.Anyone want to try this out?Until you do, please don't make claims about "manned" being gender-neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts