Character Keyword Consistency: Input Requested

[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.