Sdescs as Names

[Larrath]

Just about everyone, I believe, knows that I'm not in favor of people describing people using their sdescs.  Not by a longshot.

So now I wanna see how everyone else feels about using people's sdescs in order to provide 100% reliable and foolproof descriptions in two seconds without ever needing to do more than see the person's sdesc at one point in time.
The theory behind this is that with enough people deciding that this sucks, it might be possible to have this bullshit end, either by the staff or just sheerly by numbers.

Note: This poll is mostly referring to sdescs like "the thin, sharp-faced woman" and "the statuesque, sand-locked man" and not to "the three-eyed, inix-tattooed man".  Blatantly unique sdescs are exempt since they do give enough information to realistically describe someone.

[InsertCleverNameHere]

Voted yes, I don't like it. Parts of an sdesc is one thing, but using those solely to describe one person to another is lame.
"Hey, have you met John? He's the hirsute, blue eyed man"

Descriptive words are good for descriptions, yes. There's nothing wrong with that, but who would describe someone like that? As opposed to saying "He's hard to miss, really hairy guy with a huge beak of a nose, blue eyes and etc etc etc..."

What's in someones sdesc isn't the -only- notable thing about them. Sometimes, it's not even the MOST notable thing about them. It just happened to fit into the 35 character limit better than another characteristic.

It's about like someone new looking for a job, and when asked what they can do, they reply with every item on their skill list, or with a blunt statement of their guild class, leaving the person at the other end of the keyboard to slap their forehead and go "D'oh!"  :roll:

[RunningMountain]

Still, an sdesc are the most notable features of a person so if they walk into a room you look at them, they leave, and later you must describe them you are going to remember that he is hairy and has blue eyes, yes I agree it is quite lame to say their sdesc like it is, the hirsute, blue-eyed man, but saying, "Yes I saw him briefly pass through, he was a hairy fella' with some dull blue eyes I believe, yeah..." Isn't bad in my opinion, because that's what most people would remember about him.

-RM

[Larrath]

If you only saw them passing through, then sure, use part of the sdesc.  Think about one thing for a moment, then - if you didn't really have time to look at that guy, would you be able to tell that their eyes were actually blue and not brown?

There's nothing wrong, though, with "Oh, that guy?  Yeah, he's a hairy fekk".
That's different; first of all, it doesn't use the exact word, and it leaves more openings for variations such as hairy, hirsute, villous and whatever.  Whenever a casual-talking guy suddenly uses an unreasonably accurate or difficult word to describe someone, people know that it's from the sdesc.


If they only passed through, maybe you didn't really notice anything special, or forgot because something else caught your attention?  This is also pretty realistic.  Rooms have size, after all, and VNPC people that crowd them, usually pretty seriously (think that fiendishly crowded plaza in Allanak, or a few locations by the Temple of the Dragon).  Sometimes you just can't get a good look at someone.

[Cuusardo]

"Some hairy fellow with blue eyes" is passable.  Paraphrase all you want.  But I think if you've got the time to look at their mdescs, you should include something from those when describing people.

[fearwig]

Illegality seems kind of unreasonable, especially when you consider the newbie factor. It takes time to learn subtlety, and I can understand someone new to the mud or simply not yet very experienced with good roleplay being totally baffled by any kind of "rule" intervention.

Frowning upon this kind of thing is all good, certainly--maybe even dropping an OOC (gasp!) on the matter if it gets out of hand. But in general, ICly you won't know -not- to call this person by this name, or to reprimand someone for it... so while it's poor roleplay, it's not really atrocious. Just silly.


And quoting Gone With the Wind in latin is pretty much the epitome of geekdom, for the record.

[Larrath]

I don't mean that a player should be banned or have their karma docked because they used an sdesc to describe someone.

I just want "please try and refrain from using sdescs as names" to become a more official policy.  And newbies are a different case; it's silly to expect someone to try and not use sdescs like that while they're still struggling with the emoting system or figuring out how society works.

...And these names don't exist ICly.  ICly, there are at least twenty people in a city that could match almost any given description (excluding mutants and specific tattoos/scars), but OOCly there's maybe three people, and even that's very rare.  This issue is completely OOC, and it causes trouble IC.

[InsertCleverNameHere]

I agree if you didn't get a good look, just paraphrasing what was gathered from the sdesc is no big deal. But a lot of times I've seen it's someone who's familiar with the person, and without including a single detail on anything about them, except for quoting notable words from the sdesc, described them to another person. And most likely doing it that way just because it's the easiest way to make the person recognizable. But like someone else said, the world is filled with VNPC that could look just like the person being described. Hell, there's NPC and PC's that could double for that person.

Or, something else irritating can be having two PC's with very similar sdesc's, like "the bouncy, purple-eyed chick" and "the bouncy, neon-eyed chick". Who constantly get asked if they're related because they 'look so similar' by someone sitting right there with both of them.. Yet, if that someone bothered to assess -v them, or actually LOOK... He'd find out they stand about 3 cords height difference, one has green hair and the other has white hair, ones skin is pocked yellow, the other smooth turquoise... So, yeah. I have a problem with people who DID have enough time to look at someone, not bothering to toss in other pertinent details besides what's gained from sdesc's *chuckle*

[My 2 sids]

Sdesc is the _first_ thing people notice, that's usually how people can tell when a templar enters the room.  You can't tell players (esp new players) to use their biggest characteristics in their sdesc and then tell them that using sdesc to describe someone is not considered good role-play.  

This is one of those trivial things where people get all bent out of shape and it ends up killing the game.  Next, I suppose we should ban people from using the Say command when they should use the Talk command.  Questions like "where do we go to the bathroom, can I masturbate in game, can I put eye color in my character's description because sometimes they blink or sleep and then people shouldn't know their eye color, etc" really don't provide much to the game.  I think time would be better spent on other, broader, issues.

[jhunter]

There's a difference between (if the pc's sdesc was the sapphire-skinned, ink-etched man for example):

What'd he look like?

His skin was sapphire...etched in ink.

(Where you're conveying the exact terms used in their sdesc and therefore giving the OOC information that tells the player exactly who to look for.)"Okay so I'm looking for a guy with sapphire as the word to describe his skin and with ink-etched in there."

or...

He had bluish skin...was covered in strange markings.


(Where you aren't using the exact keywords from their sdesc  and you are leaving room for possible IC error due to the fact that you are not giving out the OOC information of their sdesc.)

I don't think the first is proper. I don't have any problem with the second example.

[Pantoufle]

I don't think it's an important issue.

I'm not being a snarky shithead by saying that, I just simply don't think it matters much.

[Trenidor]

There wasn't really an inbetween that was understandable so I voted yes.

I think it's alright to do it, but I've seen too many people abuse that by saying so and so has buff legs, even though he has baggy pants on.

I say as long as you can see it, and you provide an emote to see it, then I'd agree that it's fine to do it.

Oh, and just a tip to anyone describing someone...at least do it without completely copying what the sdesc says, try instead of describing:
the blue-skinned, tonned man

Say He looks pretty tough, then go on to say how you thing he looks toned out. And then say oh, and his arms were blue, that's all I saw stick out from his shirt.


Edit:::::

Here's a site you can look at to figure out what you may or may not see:
http://www.geocities.com/kyle_oakeson/figures.html

[amoeba]

I just want "please try and refrain from using sdescs as names" to become a more official policy.  

I disagree with this, it smacks a being a bit on the anal side and disallows for situational reasons.

Point in case, say the description was "the poc-marked, hairy half-elf" .  Now if someone asked what he looked like, it would be reasonable to go into some detail.  He had long, greasy hair, was tallish for a breed, green eyes, etc.  But later on when refering to hiim more than likely it would slip to "Oh I saw that poc-marked breed in the grasslands again."  Think about RL, do you do detailed descriptions for everyone you see, or is it occasionally "Oh you see what that pimply guy in accounting did yesterday?"   An sdesc "should" be your most notable feature.

That being said, yes it should come across as how it would be said in RL. It is probably unlikly anyone will say he was that hirisute, green-eyed male I saw yesterday.  Think about how you would describe him if it was RL. Sometimes the sdesc is the best fit.

[Dakkon Black]

If I ever give you part of an sdesc, I always change it, and never give both parts.

The Black-eyed, wrinkly elf steals from you.


Yes Lord Templar, it was an elf... and, he had some of the darkest eyes I've ever seen... really all I remember.

Or

Yes Lady Whumpalot Borsail, he was all wrinkly everywhere.. it was horrible!

It's more fun, and real.

[elvenchipmunk]

I voted chill out. But I'm not -exactly- sure what the question was, so, I'll answer both types of the question.

Using the exact words (ex: the tall, blue-eyed gith) is really bad and stupid to do.

However, using only one word is fine IMO. What I usually do is take one word from their description and find a synonym for it, and only give out that, or something I saw in their mdesc. So I think only using one word is fine, but using thw whole thing, in order is absolutely ridiculously bad roleplaying.

[Tamarin]

I am abstaining from this vote because I always use every piece of info I can get from someone's character, including name, sdesc, MDESC, equipment, etc.  Anyone who is too lazy to do this is a bad RPer.

[Xamminy]

Tamarin, so if someone was to shoot you from a couple rooms away and you couldn't get a look at them besides seeing their sdesc from two rooms away...what would you tell people?

I think everyone that has a photographic memory of every feature of a person including equipement is pushing the bounds of realism.

Calling someone who doesn't push these bounds of reason a lazy person and bad RPer...?

There have been experiments that have prooven that people will hardly be able to recognize someone they saw 15 minutes ago beating someone up in the middle of the road.  You saw someone throw a knife, what's to say that you'll be able to pick that person out of a line up?

Taking the features from someone's sdesc (which should be their most notable features or qualities, aka those qualities that should most easily be used to point the person out by later) and using them literally is using an OOC concept in game, and is being lazy OOCly meaning that you're not putting any effort or creativity into the game.  However, there is nothing wrong with saying (as other's have) that 'the blue-skinned, massive half-elf' was, "A breed, I tell ya.  His skin be all blue and shit, and he was one of the biggest fucking breeds I ever seen, I tell you what!"

In my opening example, of being shot from two rooms away.  You were shot by this half-elf.  "I didn't get no good look at the fuck, but I seen he was big and I don't know if I just be getting fucked in the head, but I coulda sworn I saw a lot of blue on the fuck."

[Trenidor]

There have been experiments that have prooven that people will hardly be able to recognize someone they saw 15 minutes ago beating someone up in the middle of the road.  You saw someone throw a knife, what's to say that you'll be able to pick that person out of a line up?

Hell I can't even remember what I ate for breakfast some times...

I can't name all people I've talked to in a day, and if I can, I can't tell you in what order I met them in the day.

So if you're trying to ask me to do a line up of people I've seen running out of my house with a TV, and that's the only thing I saw of them...then I'm not going to get my TV back...

[My 2 sids]

I think people need to remember is that this post isn't about what is good and what is poor role-play.  The actual post is assuming that using the sdesc is poor and then asking for it to be made "illegal" to use said information in a description.  That is the argument.

[Tamarin]

When someone shoots at me from two rooms away, 80% of the time, the individal is cloaked and hooded.

Out of the remaining 20%, I'd say a good half of the people who shoot have sdescs that you would never be able to figure out from any considerable distance.  This includes references to eye color, scars, tattoos, hair style, general build, etc.  I don't care how good your eyes are...when someone is blocks and blocks away, and emptying arrows on you rapid-fire, you aren't going to be able to figure out that he has cerulean eyes.

In this situation, I disregard the sdesc.  Plain and simple.  Except for maybe something like: "I dunno...I think it was an elf".  emote shrugs.

Now - If someone attacks me in a room, or sticks me up, or something where I get a good look at him...I am remembering every single word that is in that person's mdesc.  When I was in grade nine, I was mugged by two large black guys at a bus station in my hometown.  The whole altercation took upwards of 5 minutes.  The second it started, my gut instinct was to catalogue these guys.  I made mental notes of their height, weight, skin tone, hair style, clothing (including brand names...one guy had tight, inch long braids all over his head and was wearing dark blue jeans with a green columbia jacket, and the other guy had a black ball cap, flipped backwards, on his head, and was wearing navy blue jeans with a cream colored, pullover jacket.)  The second they let me go, I walked over to the pay phone, reported their exact descriptions, and a pair of patrolman picked them some time over the next few hours.  This whole process took -maybe- about thirty seconds.

Enter zalanthas.

You are mugged by a 7 foot tall elf with dark skin, notable scars, probably tattoos...and you're telling me that you're not going to be able to remember details?  Gimme a break.

I know the experiments you speak of, Xamminy.  I also know of another set of experiments.

Its been proven that showing people lineups of criminals is a faulty way of determining identity.  When presented with a group of people, the mind automatically starts mixing features up, making it all very confusing.  But when a witness is shown mug shots one at a time, perhaps 10-15 seconds for each, the rate at which he can pick out the true criminal is drastically higher.  Therefore, you cannot rely on studies that are inherently flawed.

[Anonymous]

I thought the post was about using short desc keywords as a name.

Answering to that, many nicknames are given to people because of an obvious physical characteristic.  Same thing as a short desc.  I see nothing wrong with it.

[Larrath]

This post and poll is about using keywords as a name.  That is, the part where the hunter tells the templar that the elf raider was "lanky, and with emerald eyes".

This isn't about giving someone a nickname based on their sdesc or mdesc.  There's no inherent flaw in calling "the short, ugly man" Shorty (or even Curvy to a curvy woman), but about when you tell the militia that the man they're hiding, which you know nothing else about, is short.

[Tamarin]

I don't really understand what you're talking about when you say "using keywords as a name."

When you tell the milita that the guy was short, and short is in his sdesc, you aren't using it as a name.  You're using it as a descriptive adjective.

[InsertCleverNameHere]

As far as what people might remember in a brief encounter, I saw a news thing once where they set up an entire room of college students. The only person in on it was the teacher. They had a guy walk into the room and up to her podium in a class with about 30ish students, stand there for a minute or two, then suddenly grab her purse and run out of the room. They then interviewed each student and had them give a description of the man to a sketch artist. Depending on who asked, there was a variety of answers. The ones closer sometimes had a better idea of the guy than the ones toward the back, but quite a few of them said he had the hood of his sweatshirt up, others with it down, varying features and guesses as to how tall the guy was.
Then, while being questioned there was some disagreement as to wether or not the guy was wearing a blue hat as well. Someone said they thought he had one on, some said he had an unusually large nose, and then a few others who hadn't said any such thing chimed in uncertainly in agreement. For the record, the guy didn't have his hood up, didn't have a hat, and didn't even have an unusually sized nose, but due to time and suggestibility, the answers varied greatly, and then got even more skewed. So as far as recalling pertenent details, depending upon  the situation, nerves, and whatnot, a person isn't necessarily going to recall vividly clear details.

[Larrath]

I'm referring to either using the whole thing or to one word that's clearly taken from the sdesc.  Diminutive, Swarthy, Compact, Statuesque and Dapper are all good examples of this, as are super-specific colors (auburn hair, cerulean eyes, runebane hair), unless your PC is infamous for using these obscure words when describing people unless they're extremely well known, like agafari or loreshi.  99% of all people just don't -use- these words in their day to day speech, or have enough time to decide whether that elf was lanky, lank, slender, emaciated or just towering.

Honestly, I'm hoping that the results of this poll are so shitty just because I wrote the explaination like an idiot and not because this is the actual state of things.

[Whira's Luck]

Auburn is actually a quite normal hair color and often used to describe it. It's just a handy way of saying reddish brown, or brownish red. Now, titian is another story.

[jhunter]

There was this elf pc that had the word "majestic" in his sdesc, one time another pc had an altercation with it and when asked what he looked like this was the answer given:


"Well...he was an elf...sort of majestic like you know?"


I wanted to reach through the screen and strangle the player behind the character who described another by just using the words from their sdesc instead of describing them in their own words.

In some cases it can't be helped because the sdesc contains the most commonly used descriptor (like green or blue...etc) but when it's a word your pc wouldn't have used to describe them...

Just using someone's sdesc instead of describing them in your own words (words that your character would normally use) is passing along OOC information IMO.

[flurry]

Repeating back the sdesc verbatim does bother me, and reminds me too much of playing a previous (RP-optional) MUD where that was the norm.  

I say paraphrase at the least, and mix in a detail or two from the PC's mdesc or equipment list if possible.