Subjective sdescs

[X-D]

I have to agree with Thunk...and funny example too.


Q, Yes, I know, many people have stated, But he is big compared to other half-giants.

My point is, NOBODY ELSE would notice.

Look

The gargantuan sky scraping half-giant is here

The short skinny half-giant is here.

Both raise hoods.

The gigantic and obese figure is here.
The gigantic and obese figure is here.

Assess Gargantuan
He is more then three times your height and many times your weight.

assess skinny
He is more then three times your height and many times your weight.

Sure, Gargantuan could be max HG size and Skinny could be min, but to beings outside that race, for all intents and purposes, they are some big fucken half-giants of basically equal size.

So, saying how massive your HG is, is redundant at best, same for saying you have a thin elf or bald dwarf or round-eared human.

And even inside the race, Come on, even a min weight HG is not going to think a max weight HG is Gargantuan.

Skinny HG looks at Gargantuan, assess gargantuan
He is somewhat taller then you
he is somewhat heavier then you.

Thats is specially funny/annoying when your playing a human around middle size and you see another human, The massively obese man.

Assess obese
He is the same height as you
He weighs slightly more then you

ooc Dude, you should get your sdesc changed to the slightly pudgy man...Oooh
writes that down
PC idea
the man with a little baby fat

[spicemustflow]

And this really breaks your game? I mean, do you really get annoyed when you see that in game? Did you ever actually see two half giants of vastly different heights raise their hoods? Why don't you bug all the 'petite' NPCs that a tall character has to look up at?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

X - D, you're being sort of petty with this.

To humans, a dog is small. But we can tell the difference between a big dog and a small dog.

So srsly, you're being a little petty.

[Cutthroat]

The gargantuan sky scraping half-giant is here

The short skinny half-giant is here.

Both raise hoods.

The gigantic and obese figure is here.
The gigantic and obese figure is here.

In that case, the figure is gigantic and obese compared to you, and indeed, both half-giants are far larger than you even if one half-giant happens to be short and skinny compared to all half-giants.

While you would say "NOBODY ELSE WOULD NOTICE", I would say it is very possible for a few characters to see different descriptions of the half-giants' height and weight when they "assess", and that this example

Assess Gargantuan
He is more then three times your height and many times your weight.

assess skinny
He is more then three times your height and many times your weight.

Would only happen under specific conditions. In the case it does happen, tough noogies - the "gigantic and obese figure" is something the code creates to tell you there is a hooded or masked thing in your view that is far larger than you are. If the short and skinny half-giant lowers his hood to reveal that he is indeed a half-giant, then you would be able to see that his weight and height are unusually low for half-giants. Keep in mind that this figure could be virtually anything, even if you would be inclined to guess that it is a half-giant.

Also,

Again folks, past the first few posts I'm mostly messing around with ya'll.

It's getting really hard to take these new points you keep bringing up as if they were things you were actually concerned about, although it seems like you are.

[X-D]

Sheesh, you guys seem to think I'm upset or something.

And 7, you are doing like so many, comparing apples and racecars.

Can I tell which is the 20lbs dog and which is the 100lbs dog, Yup.

Can you tell the 7500lbs elephant from the 8,000lbs elephant? I very much doubt it.

[Clearsighted]

What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Sheesh, you guys seem to think I'm upset or something.

And 7, you are doing like so many, comparing apples and racecars.

Can I tell which is the 20lbs dog and which is the 100lbs dog, Yup.

Can you tell the 7500lbs elephant from the 8,000lbs elephant? I very much doubt it.

Touche. Shuddup.

[Anaiah]

What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.

RE: Saturnine

Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.

RE: Laconic

I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.

[Travel Cake]

I can see the weight difference between the ten pound cat and the twelve pound cat.

[Clearsighted]

What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.

RE: Saturnine

Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.

RE: Laconic

I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.

Still think you're on a slippery slope with a whole lot of other subjective words allowed in all the time. And I assure you saturnine has more ot do with 'gloominess' than lead poisoning. lol.

I'm not denying its subjective, tho. But in the same way that 'towering', 'grim', 'somber', 'stalwart', or 'titanic' is. Hell, I once saw someone described as 'sanguine'.

All the lead comment did was show me the first response was to look it up in some online dictionary.

So here you go:

–adjective
1.
sluggish in temperament; gloomy; taciturn.
2.
suffering from lead poisoning, as a person.
3.
due to absorption of lead, as bodily disorders.

You'll notice that 'gloomy, taciturn' is number one. The lead poisoning example, I don't think, anyone knows. Saturnine has a rich literary history.

EDIT: So you know, in dictionaries, words are numbered based on their prevalence of usage. You don't add them up, and go like, 'well gee, lead is mentioned twice, at 2 and 3, but gloomy is mentioned once at 1, so lead must be more common!'. Cause honestly, that online dictionary, where I'm assuming you found it, cause it's the first one that came up under 'google' is the only time I've seen saturnine mentioned in the context of lead. Other dictionaries put it as thus:

1.
Born under or being under the astrological influence of the planet Saturn.
2.
Gloomy or sullen in disposition.
3.
Having a sardonic or bitter aspect.

[Anaiah]

What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.

RE: Saturnine

Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.

RE: Laconic

I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.

Still think you're on a slippery slope with a whole lot of other subjective words allowed in all the time. And I assure you saturnine has more ot do with 'gloominess' than lead poisoning. lol.

I'm not denying its subjective, tho. But in the same way that 'towering', 'grim', 'somber', 'stalwart', or 'titanic' is. Hell, I once saw someone described as 'sanguine'.

All the lead comment did was show me the first response was to look it up in some online dictionary.

So here you go:

–adjective
1.
sluggish in temperament; gloomy; taciturn.
2.
suffering from lead poisoning, as a person.
3.
due to absorption of lead, as bodily disorders.

You'll notice that 'gloomy, taciturn' is number one. The lead poisoning example, I don't think, anyone knows. Saturnine has a rich literary history.

EDIT: So you know, in dictionaries, words are numbered based on their prevalence of usage. You don't add them up, and go like, 'well gee, lead is mentioned twice, at 2 and 3, but gloomy is mentioned once at 1, so lead must be more common!'. Cause honestly, that online dictionary, where I'm assuming you found it, cause it's the first one that came up under 'google' is the only time I've seen saturnine mentioned in the context of lead. Other dictionaries put it as thus:

1.
Born under or being under the astrological influence of the planet Saturn.
2.
Gloomy or sullen in disposition.
3.
Having a sardonic or bitter aspect.

If something is the color of blood, sanguine is hardly a slippery slope. Stoutly built and robust are the first things mentioned which have to do with stalwart - which are very definite observable physical characteristics. Somber would depend highly on the context - such as one with somber silver eyes (dull silver), as opposed to silver eyes, or grey eyes. Grim is highly subjective, as is somber. I can't recall seeing anyone titanic recently. And yes, when you are at the maximum range of height, towering is an apt descriptor. When it comes to it, it's not a slippery slope. It's not a case of one thing will lead to another to another. It's a case of creativity and each individual application not only being unique, but subjective, and judged against a (somewhat) lenient set of criteria in order to encourage creativity to flourish. Because unlike some other muds, you don't just choose all the one word options for physical characteristics and have them block-formatted into an automatic description. And so long as there is more than one staff (and, with staff being human, even if there WERE only one member of staff) judging the applications, there are going to be certain amounts of slack, and given the alternate options, I think that's pretty okay. That said, if it's a case where you can't see their actual description - I would say you probably didn't get a good enough look at them to identify them too well. I'm done with this thread now. Take it where you want.

[Cutthroat]

Sheesh, you guys seem to think I'm upset or something.

And 7, you are doing like so many, comparing apples and racecars.

Can I tell which is the 20lbs dog and which is the 100lbs dog, Yup.

Can you tell the 7500lbs elephant from the 8,000lbs elephant? I very much doubt it.

Perhaps. But when half-giants have features very similar to humans, except more exaggerated (just paraphrasing what's in the docs), you would suspect that lighter half-giants actually have features to differentiate themselves from heavier ones, just like people do (chubbiness of cheeks, number of chins, width of limbs, muscle definition, etc).

(For the record, I don't think you're angry, I just question if you really believe what you're posting at this point, since before you suggested you were playing Devil's Advocate.)

[Malifaxis]

What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.

RE: Saturnine

Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.

RE: Laconic

I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.

Still think you're on a slippery slope with a whole lot of other subjective words allowed in all the time. And I assure you saturnine has more ot do with 'gloominess' than lead poisoning. lol.

I'm not denying its subjective, tho. But in the same way that 'towering', 'grim', 'somber', 'stalwart', or 'titanic' is. Hell, I once saw someone described as 'sanguine'.

All the lead comment did was show me the first response was to look it up in some online dictionary.

So here you go:

–adjective
1.
sluggish in temperament; gloomy; taciturn.
2.
suffering from lead poisoning, as a person.
3.
due to absorption of lead, as bodily disorders.

You'll notice that 'gloomy, taciturn' is number one. The lead poisoning example, I don't think, anyone knows. Saturnine has a rich literary history.

EDIT: So you know, in dictionaries, words are numbered based on their prevalence of usage. You don't add them up, and go like, 'well gee, lead is mentioned twice, at 2 and 3, but gloomy is mentioned once at 1, so lead must be more common!'. Cause honestly, that online dictionary, where I'm assuming you found it, cause it's the first one that came up under 'google' is the only time I've seen saturnine mentioned in the context of lead. Other dictionaries put it as thus:

1.
Born under or being under the astrological influence of the planet Saturn.
2.
Gloomy or sullen in disposition.
3.
Having a sardonic or bitter aspect.

Allow me to place this in simple terms.  Bite size terms, if you will, for those who are obviously getting something stuck in their craw.

"sluggish in temperment"  Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"gloomy"                        Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"taciturn"                       Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"Born under..."                Saturn doesn't goddamn exist.
"gloomy"                         Please see above.
"Sullen in temperment"     Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"having a sardonic..."        Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.

Towering annoys me.
Sanguine is completely legal.
Grim is borderline, but closer to usable than subjective... I've seen people IRL who look grim all the time, even when laughing.
Somber pisses me right off.
Fuck Stalwart... even though I think I may have played one.
Titanic, yep, I played a titanic.  I direct you to the dog portion of this thread.  He was freakin 'uge for a halfling.

Rich literary history or not, saturnine has no damn place in Armageddon, along with a whole host of other words.

The fact of the matter is that it is up to staff, and staff alone, to determine where that line is.  If they say something crosses it, respect them.  This game exists because of the time they spend to maintain it, and the money they put into the server maintenance and connection.

[Malifaxis]

And don't get me started on fucking laconic.

That damn word has NO place in a goddamn sdesc.  Ever.

[Clearsighted]

What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.

RE: Saturnine

Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.

RE: Laconic

I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.

Still think you're on a slippery slope with a whole lot of other subjective words allowed in all the time. And I assure you saturnine has more ot do with 'gloominess' than lead poisoning. lol.

I'm not denying its subjective, tho. But in the same way that 'towering', 'grim', 'somber', 'stalwart', or 'titanic' is. Hell, I once saw someone described as 'sanguine'.

All the lead comment did was show me the first response was to look it up in some online dictionary.

So here you go:

–adjective
1.
sluggish in temperament; gloomy; taciturn.
2.
suffering from lead poisoning, as a person.
3.
due to absorption of lead, as bodily disorders.

You'll notice that 'gloomy, taciturn' is number one. The lead poisoning example, I don't think, anyone knows. Saturnine has a rich literary history.

EDIT: So you know, in dictionaries, words are numbered based on their prevalence of usage. You don't add them up, and go like, 'well gee, lead is mentioned twice, at 2 and 3, but gloomy is mentioned once at 1, so lead must be more common!'. Cause honestly, that online dictionary, where I'm assuming you found it, cause it's the first one that came up under 'google' is the only time I've seen saturnine mentioned in the context of lead. Other dictionaries put it as thus:

1.
Born under or being under the astrological influence of the planet Saturn.
2.
Gloomy or sullen in disposition.
3.
Having a sardonic or bitter aspect.

Allow me to place this in simple terms.  Bite size terms, if you will, for those who are obviously getting something stuck in their craw.

"sluggish in temperment"  Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"gloomy"                        Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"taciturn"                       Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"Born under..."                Saturn doesn't goddamn exist.
"gloomy"                         Please see above.
"Sullen in temperment"     Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"having a sardonic..."        Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.

Towering annoys me.
Sanguine is completely legal.
Grim is borderline, but closer to usable than subjective... I've seen people IRL who look grim all the time, even when laughing.
Somber pisses me right off.
Fuck Stalwart... even though I think I may have played one.
Titanic, yep, I played a titanic.  I direct you to the dog portion of this thread.  He was freakin 'uge for a halfling.

Rich literary history or not, saturnine has no damn place in Armageddon, along with a whole host of other words.

The fact of the matter is that it is up to staff, and staff alone, to determine where that line is.  If they say something crosses it, respect them.  This game exists because of the time they spend to maintain it, and the money they put into the server maintenance and connection.

Meh. Point is just that alot of annoying and stupid borderline shit gets past, but /my/ annoying and borderline shit doesn't. 

[X-D]

I once got rejected on stygian then saw it on another PC two months later, I'm still upset about that one, because since then I've seen it at least 4 more times.

And on HG's, maybe you can tell the difference of the few tenstone difference in HG size, but is it really enough to qualify as making them Gargantuan compared to others? Or for that matter would one that is min actually qualify as petite compared to the others?

And aside from that, my statement that the use of such words does not tell you anything about how the HG looks, other then it looks like a HG, BIG.

As to the other words that are on the fence, I admit, in the past I've gotten some past staff that very likely should not have made it

[Synthesis]

If I remember correctly, there's something like a 4-foot playable range for half-giant height.  So yeah, you should be able to tell the difference between one that's 10ish feet tall vs. one that's 14ish.

[X-D]

Man, if I talk about weight, somebody has to use height to argue against it. Makes for long threads but does make me wonder about some of you. My watermelon is bigger then your Golf ball!

[Sam]

I don't think they should be using extreme spectrum words like: titanic, gargantuan, obese, etc... If their height/weight was higher/lower than the normal range, then I think it would be fine.

I don't see problems with skinny elves, tall half-giants, because then I can say, "Oh hey, yes, it was tall/skinny even for a HG/skinny."

[Clearsighted]

I once got rejected on stygian then saw it on another PC two months later, I'm still upset about that one, because since then I've seen it at least 4 more times.

And on HG's, maybe you can tell the difference of the few tenstone difference in HG size, but is it really enough to qualify as making them Gargantuan compared to others? Or for that matter would one that is min actually qualify as petite compared to the others?

And aside from that, my statement that the use of such words does not tell you anything about how the HG looks, other then it looks like a HG, BIG.

As to the other words that are on the fence, I admit, in the past I've gotten some past staff that very likely should not have made it

I've had a stygian.

[Lizzie]

Man, if I talk about weight, somebody has to use height to argue against it. Makes for long threads but does make me wonder about some of you. My watermelon is bigger then your Golf ball!

Yeah but your watermelon is ugly, and my golf ball can gain weight.

[Synthesis]

Man, if I talk about weight, somebody has to use height to argue against it. Makes for long threads but does make me wonder about some of you. My watermelon is bigger then your Golf ball!

I mentioned height because you were deliberately leaving it out.  It would be exceedingly unusual for someone to roll a "titanic" or "enormous" or "gargantuan" half-giant and not be on the upper end of the height range.  Although really, I would suggest that, if you cannot reasonably tell the difference between a heavy and a light half-giant, when it comes to your perception of size, height is therefore the more meaningful dimension...in which case your entire argument about the weight statistic is invalid.

[Zoan]

The best thing about this thread is, people vent, staff keep approving those apps with subjective descs. I love the GDB.

[Malifaxis]

The best thing about this thread is, people vent, staff keep approving those apps with subjective descs. I love the GDB.

I love you.

I also like my 'umbral' character from like 2000.

I'm not sure if I'm proud, or shamed.

[X-D]

I left it out as an arguable point because I don't think I've seen any HG with a sdesc that says they are a big big half-giant that was not max height anyway,  Or close to it.

The short ones almost always point it out.