Character Keyword Consistency: Input Requested

[Nyr]

We have been looking at posting policy for character keyword additions.  I have a couple of questions for the playerbase.

If character "Bob" regularly uses* the name/nickname "Bill" but does not add "Bill" with addkeyword:
1.  Is there any detriment to Bob's player if this keyword were added?
2.  Is there any detriment to other players if this keyword were added?

*Regular use:  Bob has introduced himself to several people using that name.  (This is not the case of a fake name in passing.)

We'd like to be sure we didn't overlook anything in making our policy on this.

[Qzzrbl]

I believe that if "Bob" is well-known as "Bill", it should be required that he add "Bill" as a keyword.

In the past, I've nearly had a character killed, and many of his friends and associates -were- killed, because a person that was well-known (I mean -everyone- knew about this mysterious person under his alias) under an alias, didn't have the keyword added.

[valeria]

The only thing I could see, as a potential problem is if 'Bill' was a common keyword for something else, which might result in a lot of embarassing character mistakes, and possibly even deadly accidents if people don't pay attention.

[mansa]

I totally think it depends on how well the person knows you.

I usually tend to say that if you've been interacting with the same person for more than an hour a day, for about four weeks, then you should add the nickname as a keyword.
Similar to what I wrote here, in 2007:
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,23918.msg257605.html#msg257605

If character "Bob" regularly uses* the name/nickname "Bill" but does not add "Bill" with addkeyword:
1.  Is there any detriment to Bob's player if this keyword were added?
2.  Is there any detriment to other players if this keyword were added?

*Regular use:  Bob has introduced himself to several people using that name.  (This is not the case of a fake name in passing.)

If regular use is defined by my standards (being four weeks real life), than...
1. no
2. no



::added::

I think, because of the multiple keywords you can use in reference to emotes and commands, the problems in the past may have lessened.

You can type: backstab tall.muscular.woman right?

[AmandaGreathouse]

I always add nicknames/aliases as keywords just before using them, simply because the idea of a 'keyword' is an OOC construct and it's an exploitation of code, I mean, obviously people that want to interact with you will, but to use something like a coded keyword which is an OOC construct to allow other players to use code to interact with you, in a way to try and make yourself 'uncontactable' with the name, or the like, that's completely ooc and just exploiting the limitations of code to express something that you would be able to do if it were an actual world instead of a framework of code.

[Cutthroat]

I believe that if "Bob" is well-known as "Bill", it should be required that he add "Bill" as a keyword.

There is no detriment to Bob (he gains some advantages when he is made so hard to target, probably) and there IS a detriment to other players. Keywords are an ooc thing and refusing to add one keyword that should probably be there, to gain IG benefits borders on abusive.

A quick fake name to tell someone you don't expect to see again? No keyword. A fake name that you use or plan to use consistently? Definitely should be a keyword.

[Gimfalisette]

We have been looking at posting policy for character keyword additions.  I have a couple of questions for the playerbase.

If character "Bob" regularly uses* the name/nickname "Bill" but does not add "Bill" with addkeyword:
1.  Is there any detriment to Bob's player if this keyword were added?
2.  Is there any detriment to other players if this keyword were added?

*Regular use:  Bob has introduced himself to several people using that name.  (This is not the case of a fake name in passing.)

We'd like to be sure we didn't overlook anything in making our policy on this.

The only "detriment" to Bob's player is that s/he can now be codedly targeted, or contacted, or more easily referred to by other parties, by use of the keyword. So, if a player was attempting to avoid the use of code on their PC by not adding the keyword, then s/he is "negatively" affected...i.e., is now playing by the rules.

There is likewise no "detriment" to other players if the keyword is added. It's possible there may be name confusion, if there are now five Bills in the city, and one of them is a noble, and one is a GMH family member; Ways could be going all over the place. I consider that, however, a "feature" of the keyword system in general. Bob could theoretically be attempting to impersonate one of these other Bills or illicitly obtaining their communications...but that seems part of the game and fair, since he is now subject to code via the keyword.

[aphex]

I have no problem with character keywords being enforced, however, it seems rather difficult to me to define the difference between a "short term" and a "long term" nickname, or really, to define any specific set of criteria at all that requires an added keyword. It is also going to be a lot of work to enforce that policy for little positive effect in the game

We can't remove keywords once they're added. What about nicknames or aliases that other people give you? What if my character doesn't introduce himself at all, but instead everyone just calls him Magera because that's what someone else decided he looked like? What if my character absolutely hates that name, and doesn't want anyone calling him that?

If there's a double-standard on enforcement, this is STILL going to be a problem because people will still hear you say "Hi, my name's Tregil.." and even if you only use it once, they're going to "key tregil" or "look tregil" or "assess tregil" because that's how people operate. Then they'll bitch on OOC that you don't have the keyword there.

This seems, to me, to be an increased workload on staff (patrolling the playerbase to see if they need a nickname addkeyed,  checking out MORE logs over an extended period of time, investigating more complaints) for no real benefit.

The only time I've ever had a player not having a keyword added crop as an issue is if that player is:
A. only using that nickname
B. constantly wearing a hood or other concealing equipment (from log on til log off.)
C. purposefully using language in their mdesc in such a manner that they obfuscate their sdesc (this is the biggest factor imo, and ALSO the one most easily touched and dealt with by immortals.)

Frankly I think leaving policy the way it is with no keyword enforcement unless the person/people are doing these three things. I have only -once- had an issue with this problem ever, in five years of playing Armageddon, and frankly I didn't even feel the need to OOC to the guy or report it, because really, if he's THAT dead-set that he's going to use OOC mechanics to not let anyone contact him, that's his prerorogative.

No player (imo) really has a right to demand another add a keyword unless it is wildly, ridiculously, and incredibly inappropriate.

*cough* Like having no identity other than A FIGURE IN A DARK HOODED CLOAK for a long lived PC.

I think that the staff should, instead of retroactively investigating issues and going to add keywords, it would be a better idea to instead proactively review the applications you're approving and.. Make sure that they have at least one sdesc word that makes sense / is from their mdesc, or key additional words from the mdesc for clarity.

Oh, and.. Adding a keyword to assume someone else's identity? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I don't just one day decide to turn from Jim to Jim-Ivanhoe and magically start intercepting Way messages for Lord Templar Ivanhoe the Terrible.

That's my two cents.

-- Edit --

I think, because of the multiple keywords you can use in reference to emotes and commands, the problems in the past may have lessened.

Also, this. Again, the big thing is people using a combination of techniques (some of which I think are more easily controllable more than a keyword list) to prevent people from contacting them or targeting them successfully. It seems silly to me that people want others to addkeyword just for convenience sake when it is not actually negatively affecting their gameplay (e.g. you already know the person's sdesc or can easily determine it from a look).

[Nyr]

We can't remove keywords once they're added. What about nicknames or aliases that other people give you?  What if my character doesn't introduce himself at all, but instead everyone just calls him Magera because that's what someone else decided he looked like? What if my character absolutely hates that name, and doesn't want anyone calling him that?

These are all separate situations from the policy we're looking at creating, so there's no need to worry about them.  The answer to all of the above, however, would be "you don't have to addkeyword a nickname someone else gives you."

This seems, to me, to be an increased workload on staff (patrolling the playerbase to see if they need a nickname addkeyed,  checking out MORE logs over an extended period of time, investigating more complaints) for no real benefit.

We aren't going to do any of that.  The idea is to create a policy so that players know what is expected of them in advance and will know what to expect from staff in advance.

I think that the staff should, instead of retroactively investigating issues and going to add keywords, it would be a better idea to instead proactively review the applications you're approving and.. Make sure that they have at least one sdesc word that makes sense / is from their mdesc, or key additional words from the mdesc for clarity.

We're not discussing sdesc words, but character keywords added after character creation--and really only the specific case mentioned in the original post.  (You can could previously also add keywords that would be nicknames/other names at character creation, too, but that is unrelated.)  While instances of these specific cases are rare, we noticed that there is not any consistent policy on them.

I appreciate the feedback from everyone; thank you.  Remember that we are looking for answers to the following two questions specifically:

1.  Is there any detriment to Bob's player if this keyword were added?
2.  Is there any detriment to other players if this keyword were added?

[Morgenes]

Note that you CAN remove keywords with staff intervention, however you must have a very good reason why you want it removed.

[AmandaGreathouse]

Not to derail, but how would you add keywords for other names at char creation? And would those have the same weight as the PC's 'technical' name?

[FantasyWriter]

It is a huge OOC pain not to be able to reach someone using the name you know them by, especially with all the similar/duplicate sdescs that seem to be popping up.

I have even ooc'd several people about it lately in case they actually forgot to add the name.


I can't see a disadvantage to anyone's player if this was made official policy.

[Morgenes]

Not to derail, but how would you add keywords for other names at char creation? And would those have the same weight as the PC's 'technical' name?

You used to be able to add keywords at char creation, which is functionally the same as using addkeyword once you get in the game.  We removed it to streamline character creation.  These keywords acted as they do today, they are not your truename, but they are names that people know you as.

[Lizzie]

Regarding keywords in general:

I don't care if my character likes what people call her or not. If it's what people call her, then I'll add it as a keyword. I can't tell you how many people who have come up with names that are insanely hard to type..or hard to pronounce, if I was my character and trying to say the name out loud...it makes sense for people to come up with something else. And if that something else happens to stick, you just got yourself a nickname. That's what nicknames are, afterall. They're things people started calling you, and never stopped.

I'm guessing Fatty Tor's real name wasn't Fatty. And if he (it was a he, right?) hated being called that, if it hurt his feelings to hear the name mentioned out loud..would it have less value as a keyword? No. It's what people call him, whether he likes it or not. And so - as far as the general population is concerned, he's Fatty Tor.

There was a Bynner I think who used to be called Tits. I think most people never heard her actual name mentioned - not because she didn't use it, but simply because she was called Tits, she had big tits, it stuck, it was appropriate, and that's how it ended up. I don't even remember what her actual name is, now. I do remember that everyone called her Tits.

If you earn a nickname, you should keyword it. If you give yourself a nickname, you should keyword it. If you give someone else a name to refer to you with, you should keyword it. My reason for saying this is, because no matter what, you -will- want to answer to whatever you claimed was your name, when the person you told, uses it. If you tell someone "My name is Bill" and the guy says "Hey there Bill!" you'll want to cover your ass and _pretend_ that your name is Bill, and answer him, and say "Hey there, Jim, how ya doin?" You won't want to say "My name isn't Bill" or "Who you talking to?" because - well then they'll know, that you're not Bill, even though you told them you are Bill, just an hour ago.

[AmandaGreathouse]

It is a huge OOC pain not to be able to reach someone using the name you know them by, especially with all the similar/duplicate sdescs that seem to be popping up.

I have even ooc'd several people about it lately in case they actually forgot to add the name.


I can't see a disadvantage to anyone's player if this was made official policy.

Agreed. Though I've luckily only seen this two or three times, and they were very accommodating.

Also, thanks, Morg. I didn't recall seeing that, but would have used it a couple times if I had.

[brytta.leofa]

1.  Is there any detriment to Bob's player if this keyword were added?
2.  Is there any detriment to other players if this keyword were added?

This is all under (1).

Suppose I have a 'rinthi crime-boss, called Amos from his infancy. When he gets into proper crime, he starts calling himself Killer in order to conceal his truename (or, possibly, to sound tougher).  He goes by "Killer" everywhere and adds it as a keyword.

But Killer is also afraid that the templarate will identify his sdesc general appearance or race psionically through his alias.  So he tells introduces himself to his southside contacts as "Pansy."  His minions know who "Pansy" is, but they don't regularly call him that.  People who only know this alias can't contact him through the Way. 

Should this be considered abusive, or is it a valid tactic?

[X-D]

I do not agree that anybody should have to add a keyword as long as we cannot remove them at will.

Or have a way to add temp keywords.

Or have a way to add a keyword that works only for certain other chars.

The only thing that should be static is your PCs true name or the keywords that go with your sdesc.

Other then that I would love a temp keyword command or even better a way to addkeywords only for other PCs.

So My PC meets Amos, to most PCs my guy is known as bob, but he does not want amos to know him as bob  so I enter the command knowntoo amos bill, this checks the room for the keyword amos  and remembers  that that amos has your keyword as bill.

Reason for this is. It is not so much the name I give you but the name I remember giving you. IRL I have been known in different ways to different people and I'm quite able to remember them. If I tell tom that my name is joe and I tell mike my name is bubba, if tom calls me bubba I will ignore him, it is not a valid target for tom to use, it is only a valid target for mike to use.

We do not have anything like this IG, instead you have the choice to either give a false name so that nobody can target you with it or add a keyword that anybody can target you with.

Neither are realistic in any way.

[Salt Merchant]

I think an additional question should be asked:

Does the player get an unfair OOC -advantage- by omitting the keyword?

Especially if the player has chosen a minimal sdesc to begin with?

Is it fair that the character becomes difficult to target in a fight through an OOC mechanism, even though one's own character may be well familiar with her appearance?

Is it fair that, having met face to face and been given a name, one's own character can not use that name to contact that character or target her? Why is being contactable or targetable by that name at the OOC discretion of the player? (This really touches on how the Way works).

Also, if omitting the keyword is approved, aren't we just going to see everyone start doing it for their own protection? That would suck.

[Qetesh]

To answer XD's issue, there is no reason you can't add both Bob and Bill and introduce yourself as you see fit, as both.

Then both those players will call you by that key word and assume that you are either of those names. Why would Amos call you by any other name, if he only ever met you as Bob? Unless someone else says "Oh.. you mean that guy with the hair lip and the bright red dreadlocks in the Byn??.. I know that guy.. but he told me his name was Bill."

I think that also answers brytta.leofa 's question too. You can be called as many names as you like, so, no it's abusive.  

The problem that has come to pass recently is that we have a few people going by names on a constant basis that they do not use keywords for. I don't mean a one time use throw away name that they give to a templar to wiggle out of some trouble. If this becomes a trend with players not wanting to have a distinct name keyword attached to their PC, it becomes problematic for the playerbase when trying to target a specific person.

If everyone did this, certain aspects of how the game mechanics work would become an issue. For instance the contact command or even sitting in a populated tavern can become really irritating on an OOC level.

Lets take an example of what I mean:

Bill is the blue eyed man, but he is going by Dan, a name which is not in his keyword list.

Issue One:

I, a person who has been interacting with "Dan" at a bar, try to contact him to tell him something private. So I type "Contact Blue" I get back "You contact the blue haired elf". Then OOC'ly annoyed, I have to try and contact 2.blue, 3.blue until I get him, or who I "think" is him, something that I should IC'ly know, because I am sitting with "Dan" and I should have a good idea of what "Dan's" presence feels like.

Issue two:

I try and target "Dan" while I am speaking to him.  I type "talk (with a sexy smile for ~blue) Hi, my name is Efme.  I get back "With a sexy smile for your blue embroidered backpack, you say in sirihish, Hi, my name is Efme."  I either have to OOC'ly ignore what I just typed and pretend Dan knows or retype and figure out which BLUE "Dan" is. Either way, it's taking me out of my RP, or to Mansa's point below, I could go and type blue.eyed.man.

Now this might not be a big deal if it's one or two people, but if everyone did this, you can imagine how unplayable the game would become for everyone and how frustrating, if you had to pretty much start typing out everyone's sdesc. Since we are seeing a little trend of this, it is something that we staff feel needs to be addressed in our documentation as policy from now on, so as to keep play fair and consistant across the board.

[Sephiroto]

I believe that if "Bob" is well-known as "Bill", it should be required that he add "Bill" as a keyword.

This...

However, if "Bob" is known as "Bill" to a secret society or some other similar, hypothetical contacts, I see no need to add "Bill" to keywords on the pretext that "Bill" is overtly known among the group to be a fake name.  If the other members of the group knew "Bill" well enough to contact him they should be aware of other keywords or features needed to establish a mental link.

If your true name is Jake and everyone in Allanak knows you as Johnny because you tell everyone your name is Johnny on the pretext that it is your actual name, you better have "Johnny" as a keyword or I'm going to report you.  If you're some secrety guy using an obviously fake name and hiding your featuers, then I'm going to try to get a good look at your face and game on.  I hope this makes sense.

[mansa]

...

The problem that has come to pass recently is that we have a few people going by names on a constant basis that they do not use keywords for. If this becomes a trend with players not wanting to have a distinct name keyword attached to their PC, it becomes problematic for the playerbase when trying to target a specific person.

If everyone did this, certain aspects of how the game mechanics work would become an issue. For instance the contact command or even sitting in a populated tavern can become really irritating on an OOC level.

Lets take an example of what I mean:

Bill is the blue eyed man, but he is going by Dan, a name which is not in his keyword list.

I a person who has been interacting with "Dan" at a bar, try to contact him to tell him something private. So I type "Contact Blue" I get back "You contact the blue haired elf". Then OOC'ly annoyed, I have to try and contact 2.blue, 3.blue until I get him, or who I "think" is him, something that I should IC'ly know, because I am sitting with "Dan" and I should have a good idea of what "Dan's" presence feels like.

You can now:   contact blue eyed man

This should solve a lot of problems, but not all of them.

Issue two, I try and target "Dan" while I am speaking to him.  I type "talk (with a sexy smile for ~blue) Hi, my name is Efme.  I get back "With a sexy smile for your blue embroidered backpack, you say in sirihish, Hi, my name is Efme."  I either have to OOC'ly ignore what I just typed and pretend Dan knows or retype and figure out which BLUE "Dan" is. Either way, it's taking me out of my RP.

Now this might not be a big deal if it's one or two people, but if everyone did this, you can imagine how unplayable the game would become for everyone.  Since we are seeing a little trend of this, it is something that we staff feel needs to be addressed. Which is why we are asking about anything detrimental that we may have overlooked.

Again, you can type:  talk (with a sexy smile for ~blue.man.eyed) Hi, my name if Efme.


The issue that I have is if someone adds the keyword, Dan, when it's supposed to be a temporary contact thing.

Story:
"Shadow" is a guild leader, and he wants to speak with a templar.  He introduces himself as Dan to the templar.  They talk.  Shadow leaves.

The templar asks a minion - Find out more about Dan.

A minion walks into the 'rinth, and asks some people about Dan.  Or, he could walk into a bar and type, 'keyword dan', and BOOM, he knows that someone at the bar has the keyword, Dan.  That's Out-Of-Character information that he's using there, to pick out the guild leader in a bar.

My opinion I've mentioned above in another post - If you pretend to be someone, for an hour a day, in real life,  for a full real-life month... at this point you should probably get the keyword added.

If you're known as Dan to five people, and you never interact with them, besides an hour, real life, once a week, real life, then whatever.

[brytta.leofa]

I think that also answers brytta.leofa 's question too. You can be called as many names as you like, so, no it's abusive.

My question was this:
  Is it acceptable to NOT addkeyword an alias that you use regularly, but only in a limited set of circumstances?  If they know me southside as Pansy, must I addkeyword pansy?

To me the ability to string.keywords.together mitigates most of the targeting problems.  And if I need to bash Sayyeverian, the cerulean-bedecked, tattooed humanoid who refuses to "addkeyword jill", there are plenty of client-side ways I can prepare.

[Qetesh]

If you are known by a few people as Pansy and you consistantly use that name, yes you should add that keyword, so that when others want to contact you, they don't have to string your sdesc together in the hopes of getting you.

It's polite and causes less confusion. Yes, you can get around them, but why make other people do that? If your answer is so that you have a coded advantage in certain instances,  then, that's really not the right answer.

[Eloran]

If character "Bob" regularly uses* the name/nickname "Bill" but does not add "Bill" with addkeyword:
1.  Is there any detriment to Bob's player if this keyword were added?

Some, if Bob considers the name to be only an alias that he is not really known by with other groups. The name being added as a keyword will allow him to be targetted then by others. However, this might be more of an OOC nuisance, as opposed to an IC one. You have to pay to play, and the only way to stay truly incognito is to play more for the shadows. If you throw your name out there, or an alias, and people known you by that alias, then you should be targetable. Thems the breaks.

2.  Is there any detriment to other players if this keyword were added?

Absolutely none. I've been aggravated before by people who give me a name, yet I can't use said name to target them in emotes, or contact them. Rather, I have to rely on short descriptions, which are fairly inconsistent when applying them to psionics/emotes.

[Nyr]

I should add the caveat that in the OP example (and the only case we're interested in really looking at), this is not a special circumstance of a secret given name.  I personally could care less if everyone calls Bob "Nuts" even if it's not one of his keywords.  I don't particularly mind if Bob is known as "Scaryface" to a secret group of people, yet doesn't have that as a keyword.  Some clans encourage secret names like that.

This is a bare-bones situation, no special circumstances, just "Bob introduces himself as Bill to many people under no special circumstances and does not have Bill as a keyword."

Best Practices on Character Name/Nickname Keywords

Keywords are meant to provide a means for players to target objects, NPCs, and PCs correctly.  Since the introduction of the addkeyword command some time ago, players are now able to add keywords for their characters (usually in the form of names/nicknames). 

If your character regularly uses a certain name or nickname, it is courteous and helpful to add this name or nickname to your character as a keyword.  (Regular use:  your character has introduced his/herself to several people with a name--e.g., "Amos" goes to the bar every day and sees people there, talks to them, and introduces himself as "Bill" each time.  He should add this as a keyword.)  If the lack of this keyword becomes a problem, staff may request that you add this keyword (or add it for you).  This is to make things easier for other players; it is not a punishment.  If you have a disagreement with staff over the addition of a keyword, please send in a description change request to appeal it.  Obviously, this is prone to some subjectivity; different people have different opinions.  This was written to help players consider this in advance--however, the addition and removal of keywords in these cases remain up to staff discretion.

Armageddon Reborn will have functionality that will remove the need to do this, but for Armageddon 1, please remember to addkeyword nicknames or other names that your characters use on a regular basis.

[Marc]

My only issue harps on X-d's but in regards to long-range abilities.

I had a character once who no one ever saw.  He caused mischief and troubles but was generally a non-issue.  The day one of his keywords got out, he was contacted, magicked and killed.  I sympathize with the mundane problems of targeting in regards to keywords, but to be fair, anyone who has dealt with groups of cloaked figured gets pretty damn good at targeting, or should (use assess you dolts).  The addition of keyword.additionkeyword further alleviates the problem.

This seems like a non-issue to me, but if it IS an issue I'd think some form of temporary keyword is the answer.  With how the code works in regard to soooooooo many abilities, keyword knowledge compromises the safety of the character.  Not to mention sdesc snooping via contact and keywords.  It's not hard to differentiate between npcs and pcs via the Way.

Yes, this is protecting keywords for a coded benefit.  I also use specific weapons for coded benefits, bring rope for coded benefits and pay attention to my encumbrance because of the coded benefits (or lack there of).

The 'coded benefits' are like gravity.  Maybe you don't believe it effects you or should effect you, but it does anyway.
If you take away the long-distant danger poised by keyword knowledge, it's no longer part of Armageddon's reality and as such a non-issue either way.

[X-D]

If Amos has used the name bob enough that even he identifies with it then yes, it should be added.

I still think we should have a temp keyword command though. Maybe even have it have a memory so that if you use the same keyword too many times over a certain period of time it gets added to perm keywords.

I'd love that myself and I doubt if it would take one of the arm code gods more then an hour to put together.

My biggest problem with even the OP is that many people only seem to think of keywords as external identifiers, and I think they should be mostly internal identifiers. If I give a name and do not identify with it you should not be able to use it to identify me a week later, specialy not be able to give it to other people to identify me.

[Salt Merchant]

To me the ability to string.keywords.together mitigates most of the targeting problems.  And if I need to bash Sayyeverian, the cerulean-bedecked, tattooed humanoid who refuses to "addkeyword jill", there are plenty of client-side ways I can prepare.

Some sdescs only supply one keyword other than 'man' or 'male'. A keyword which can be quite common, even.

[brytta.leofa]

To me the ability to string.keywords.together mitigates most of the targeting problems.  And if I need to bash Sayyeverian, the cerulean-bedecked, tattooed humanoid who refuses to "addkeyword jill", there are plenty of client-side ways I can prepare.

Some sdescs only supply one keyword other than 'man' or 'male'. A keyword which can be quite common, even.

I'm trying to think of one, but no dice.  Can you gimme a wholly-sanitized example?

the dusty male
the dark man
the male man
the man with no figure

[ibusoe]

We have been looking at posting policy for character keyword additions.  I have a couple of questions for the playerbase.

If character "Bob" regularly uses* the name/nickname "Bill" but does not add "Bill" with addkeyword:
1.  Is there any detriment to Bob's player if this keyword were added?
2.  Is there any detriment to other players if this keyword were added?

*Regular use:  Bob has introduced himself to several people using that name.  (This is not the case of a fake name in passing.)

We'd like to be sure we didn't overlook anything in making our policy on this.

Thank you for soliciting player input on this.

When this first sort of thing was proposed years ago, I tried to stay neutral on the issue, however I got the feeling that the people who were so insistent that other players use the proper keywords were being really pushy.  

And so I'm against it.  Later, other players piped in that we were being "twinkish," but ironically I thought they were being twinkish for trying to arrange twenty keyboard shortcuts and macros specifically to deal with my character.  Also, I think that the witch hunt to crack down on twinks is counter-productive.  It's not emotionally healthy to constantly worry that someone, somewhere is breaking the rules.

Some players/staff seem to think that there is only one right way to play the game and that anyone who is doing anything differently is engaged in wrongthink or is some kind of thought-criminal.

Even if this sort of rule is implemented, it will be a Pyrrhic Victory because people are just going to find ways to circumvent this sort of thing.  I won't do it to be a pest, but I'd be much happier if other players/staffers would actively attempt to nurture my sense of fun/creativity rather than make twenty rules about what keywords to add or that elves cannot ride silt skimmers.

[RogueGunslinger]

What happens when bill goes by bob, but doesn't have the keyword, and bob goes by bill, but doesn't have the keyword.

Fun times that would be.

[Delstro]

If I give someone a nickname for me, I usually addkeyword it.

I am still in favor of being able to add keywords to other people that only I can use for them.

[ibusoe]

If I give someone a nickname for me, I usually addkeyword it.

I am still in favor of being able to add keywords to other people that only I can use for them.

I find that sort of suggestion to be much, much more palatable.  After all, this sort of capability is pretty much already in the hands of those of us who have significant computer programming backgrounds.  We might as well make it available to the rest of us.

[brytta.leofa]

This is a bare-bones situation, no special circumstances, just "Bob introduces himself as Bill to many people under no special circumstances and does not have Bill as a keyword."

... If your character regularly uses a certain name or nickname, it is courteous and helpful to add this name or nickname to your character as a keyword.  (Regular use:  your character has introduced his/herself to several people with a name--e.g., "Amos" goes to the bar every day and sees people there, talks to them, and introduces himself as "Bill" each time.  He should add this as a keyword.)  If the lack of this keyword becomes a problem, staff may request that you add this keyword (or add it for you). ...

I hear ya, and I think the snippet (proposed documentation?) that you provided is completely reasonable.

My worry is that such documentation could someday sort of outgrow itself if we don't argue out the corner cases up front.  Once something's become holy writ, it can become easy to forget the grain of salt.

[Qzzrbl]

I'd give my first-born child to the Staff if they made it to where you could add personal keywords that only you yourself use for other people.

That would eliminate so many problems.

If I meet Bob and associate him with the name "Sidbeard", then why do I have to hope and pray that he adds that keyword, and why is everyone else who's never even heard the name 'Sidbeard able to look at Bob by typing "look 'sidbeard"?

That's just silly.

[X-D]

See I'm all for that too.

[Obeliskocism]

I support the reasoning behind wanting to add a keyword of this type, but I think other recent code improvements have made it unneccesary.  Now that you can use multiple keywords to psi_contact someone, and now that you can target people in other ways using keyword.combinations, the problem is already solved.  

If those two code upgrades weren't in place, then I'd be voting 'yes - aka Bill should have bill as a keyword'.  Now, I'd say it's a luxery and doesn't need to be a priority for staff.

I'd like to think the honor system will work pretty well for most people who can add a keyword themselves when it's appropriate, and for those who don't or are trying to circumvent code, the two new keyword targetting options give everyone else some good tools to find the person anyway.

[Tzurahro]

One of things that concern me is that this, in combination with a "change description" request gives PC's who play in this fashion the ability to "disappear" that no other PC enjoys without specific assistance and approval by other types of staff intervention.  It is purposefully difficult to have keywords removed from PCs.  This behavior seems an attempt to circumvent the reasoning behind -why- it is difficult.

I know it is all tangled up with all sorts of complicated issues:  the manner the Way functions, the nature of the targeting code, the mess of description vs identity, etc., but at the heart of it, it seems to me a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage due to these issues.

So far, the staff has stated guidelines, and been content to trust the honor system for players to follow them. This is problem when players who ignore the honor system seem to enjoy some benefit.

[flurry]

A clear policy on this would be a good thing. I haven't encountered it much, but when I have, it's been pretty annoying.

The part that I have a hard time getting past is why would a character have this special ability to keep what should be a keyword from working. It's plainly an ooc advantage, and one I have difficulty making sense of -why- it should be.

If character "Bob" regularly uses* the name/nickname "Bill" but does not add "Bill" with addkeyword:
1.  Is there any detriment to Bob's player if this keyword were added?
2.  Is there any detriment to other players if this keyword were added?

*Regular use:  Bob has introduced himself to several people using that name.  (This is not the case of a fake name in passing.)

I can see how it makes certain "secret identity" strategies less workable, but I'm not convinced that those should work in the first place.

[Reiloth]

What if you made keywords, other than 'true name', unavailable while hooded, or facewrapped?

IE: If you try to contact Shadow, guild leader, but he is disguised, you would not be able to make out who it is through the way. You'd see a hooded figure, or a masked figure, and be unable to distinguish if that actually was who you are looking for.

If you tried to 'keyword shadow' at a bar, it wouldn't show anything, because the guy is wearing a hood, and a mask, and it would avoid the OOC usage of the keyword command to sniff out masked people as to who they really are.

If you tried to 'look shadow' in the same situation, it would show a negative.

It provides more reasons to really see people's face, if you are an authority figure, and being able to identify them personally.

Mdesc would remain.

[NoteworthyFellow]

What if you made keywords, other than 'true name', unavailable while hooded, or facewrapped?

IE: If you try to contact Shadow, guild leader, but he is disguised, you would not be able to make out who it is through the way. You'd see a hooded figure, or a masked figure, and be unable to distinguish if that actually was who you are looking for.

If you tried to 'keyword shadow' at a bar, it wouldn't show anything, because the guy is wearing a hood, and a mask, and it would avoid the OOC usage of the keyword command to sniff out masked people as to who they really are.

If you tried to 'look shadow' in the same situation, it would show a negative.

It provides more reasons to really see people's face, if you are an authority figure, and being able to identify them personally.

Mdesc would remain.

I like this.

[Reiloth]

Or to go even further, make it so you can only contact people through short description modifiers, instead of keywords or names.

If Templar Soandso asks you to find out more about Dan, you'll have to really grind to get anything.

In a world where Commoners are supposed to have 'very limited psionic capability', it seems like such a change would bring things a little more in line with that belief.

Psions would be another story, but something that people have considered a given for years...Eh. Mai Immersion wouldn't be affected. If anything -- It'd provide more work, more jobs, make it harder in general to discover someone's true identity.

It might also appease some of the disguise fan boys.

[Fathi]

What if you made keywords, other than 'true name', unavailable while hooded, or facewrapped?

IE: If you try to contact Shadow, guild leader, but he is disguised, you would not be able to make out who it is through the way. You'd see a hooded figure, or a masked figure, and be unable to distinguish if that actually was who you are looking for.

If you tried to 'keyword shadow' at a bar, it wouldn't show anything, because the guy is wearing a hood, and a mask, and it would avoid the OOC usage of the keyword command to sniff out masked people as to who they really are.

If you tried to 'look shadow' in the same situation, it would show a negative.

It provides more reasons to really see people's face, if you are an authority figure, and being able to identify them personally.

Mdesc would remain.

I have a large amount of support for this idea, but I'd like to play devil's advocate for a second.

I think of keywords as an OOC construct that can be considered a means of keeping track of the identifying information that would be available to our characters but isn't coded in.

For example, a keyword allows you to roleplay your PC's ability to recognise an individual based on things like the sound of their voice, their gait, their scent, etc.

If I'm at the bar with Shadow and I know Shadow fairly well, I wouldn't consider it OOC to use the keyword command, note that it is indeed Shadow, and roleplay recognising Shadow if he talks to me, because my character would probably recognise Shadow's voice.

Granted, you can substitute the mdesc as a means to recognise someone rather than keyword, and I'm aware with that. I was just pointing out potential reasoning as to why name keywords function like they do, though this post is far from endorsed by staff or anything and I don't know if that's how they intended it.

I do, however, love the idea of getting the masked sdesc over the Way.

[Reiloth]

What if you made keywords, other than 'true name', unavailable while hooded, or facewrapped?

IE: If you try to contact Shadow, guild leader, but he is disguised, you would not be able to make out who it is through the way. You'd see a hooded figure, or a masked figure, and be unable to distinguish if that actually was who you are looking for.

If you tried to 'keyword shadow' at a bar, it wouldn't show anything, because the guy is wearing a hood, and a mask, and it would avoid the OOC usage of the keyword command to sniff out masked people as to who they really are.

If you tried to 'look shadow' in the same situation, it would show a negative.

It provides more reasons to really see people's face, if you are an authority figure, and being able to identify them personally.

Mdesc would remain.

I have a large amount of support for this idea, but I'd like to play devil's advocate for a second.

I think of keywords as an OOC construct that can be considered a means of keeping track of the identifying information that would be available to our characters but isn't coded in.

For example, a keyword allows you to roleplay your PC's ability to recognise an individual based on things like the sound of their voice, their gait, their scent, etc.

If I'm at the bar with Shadow and I know Shadow fairly well, I wouldn't consider it OOC to use the keyword command, note that it is indeed Shadow, and roleplay recognising Shadow if he talks to me, because my character would probably recognise Shadow's voice.

Granted, you can substitute the mdesc as a means to recognise someone rather than keyword, and I'm aware with that. I was just pointing out potential reasoning as to why name keywords function like they do, though this post is far from endorsed by staff or anything and I don't know if that's how they intended it.

I do, however, love the idea of getting the masked sdesc over the Way.

My only retort is that currently, PC's can give you a false name, and never add the name as a keyword, despite people's urgings through OOC. I personally MIND when people go OOC to tell a character "You've been using this 'false name' for a while now, and you aren't adding it as a keyword, i'm going to call the cops." Seriously, why so butthurt? Use their sdesc to find them over the way. Call them "Boobane". The 'keyword' command has kind of ended secrecy of identity. If someone calls themselves Boobane, and you use the keyword command and it does not show up, how does that make you feel? Duped. Absurd! His name isn't real! The code says so!

Suspend some belief, and roll with the punches. I think we should do away with the keyword command by name. Only by physical appearance -- AKA 'keyword brown' - - The brown-haired, haggard man.

Color me crazy.

[Incognito]

I must admit, I'm in agreement with X-D, about not having to add any keyword to your PC, unless you really wanted to, even if you used it consistently in interractions with others.

There are times when you wanna be known as "someone who looked like a black-haired man, but I can't really recall his name".

Unless players get the ability to remove keywords added by them, there really is no reason to force a policy for them to have to add a keyword to their pc as well.

Maybe I might be calling myself Tektolnes - just as a joke - with everyone in the gaj - for 2 years running - does that mean my pc must add that as a keyword?

IMO people who repeatedly present themself with a name which isnt one of their keywords - others should technically RP it as having forgotten their name, or not remembering it exactly.....even if multiple introductions have been made.

[Gimfalisette]

IMO people who repeatedly present themself with a name which isnt one of their keywords - others should technically RP it as having forgotten their name, or not remembering it exactly.....even if multiple introductions have been made.

...what? You want me to have to roleplay that my PC just "can't remember" something that my PC actually does remember? Your solution is to dictate my RP, rather than just add the damn keyword?

[flurry]

The 'keyword' command has kind of ended secrecy of identity. If someone calls themselves Boobane, and you use the keyword command and it does not show up, how does that make you feel? Duped. Absurd! His name isn't real! The code says so!

Suspend some belief, and roll with the punches.

Even before the keyword command, though, you would pretty quickly realize the name someone is using doesn't work for emotes, tell, look, whatever.

I totally agree about rolling with the punches. But you still have the "to fool the character, you have to fool the player" issue, it seems like. In this case, it's almost like trying to fool the character while making it blatantly obvious to the player. I wish there were a way around that aspect of it.

[Is Friday]

addtempkeyword bob

You have added 'bob' as your temporary keyword. In one Zalanthan month you must add it permanently. You may remove it at any time, in the temporary phase. If you wish to add the same keyword again after previously having deleted it, it must be permanent.

[Fathi]

What it boils down to for me is what Nyr said in his original post about "regular use." If it's a regularly-used name that your PC is calling his or herself, I think it should be added as a keyword, simply because the player that doesn't add it gains an advantage over others that is purely a side effect of how the code works, not how reality would work. (I'd be happy to go into this part in more detail if anyone doesn't think said advantage exists.)

One particular recent example is a fellow a PC of mine knew over the course of more than one RL month. He used the same name when introducing themselves to everybody they met in multiple cities, but never keyworded it. As far as I know, he never even used any other names. So you had to "contact tall.muscular.man" to contact him, which doesn't really bother me.

Except that person also had the exact same sdesc as at least one NPC. You couldn't ever tell if he was logged in or not, or whether he got your Way messages, because if he was logged off, you'd just contact the NPC.

Either that was an unfortunate mishap on his part that resulted in a lot of unnecessary confusion... or he was deliberately trying to make himself untraceable via the Way.

I'm not gonna pass judgement on that guy since it seems like the sort of thing that could be an honest mistake--especially if he'd never met that NPC--but situations like this are why I'd support well-known aliases being mandatory keywords.*





* Or I'd be completely happy with one of the alternatives posed in this thread, like X-D's or Is Friday's. As long as there's some way to make sure there's a unique keyword modifier in there.

[flurry]

Wow, Fathi's example should be required reading for this thread. As well-intentioned or accidental as that might have been, it shouldn't be possible.

[spawnloser]

Shoulda been a poll.

Yes, if someone regularly uses a keyword, they should be required to add they keyword or provide mechanism for others to tag that person with a keyword themselves (like the 'name' or 'title' commands seen on some other muds with sdescs).

I don't know if I like the 'addtempkeyword' idea.  Add a keyword on a timer?  Interesting... would prevent the instant recognition people get when they try to target you by a keyword you don't have, because you can have the keyword but not be required to keep the keyword forever?  I guess that beats the other options, not having the keyword (which often means because the player can't target a character, the player's character often becomes more suspicious, sadly) or having to add the keyword and then later explain having it removed when you do a description change.

[Nyr]

Thank you for the feedback.  This is what we've come up with:

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,35608.msg455906.html#msg455906

I'm going to go ahead and close down this thread as it has served its purpose.  If you would like to comment on this, you can create a thread on it.

Much thanks, again!