Who is the judge here?

[Cuusardo]

It's been my understanding that it is up to the individual to judge whether or not a person is attractive.  If that is the case, then words such as "handsome" or "beautiful" should not be used in mdescs.  I have seen at least one PC and one NPC with words like these in their mdescs.  Short, tall, fat, skinny, and other such subjective terms are understandable, but this is just TOO subjective, IMO.

[My 2 sids]

If judgment is in the eye of the beholder than why do I have the idea that over half the people (both sexes) have about the same picture in their head when I say "beautiful chick" or "sexy guy"?  The truth is there is a standard norm that society accepts as beauty.

However, I do understand from where you are comming.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I disagree. You'll note that nary a novel exists where one does not read some subjective material, and the reason for this is simple. We work with words here, and not pictures. While I certianly don't support phrases like, "This man is handsome", phrases like, "This dwarf has noble features and would be considered handsome in silt horror circles" are quite fine.

[Crestor]

Don't be subjective. It is much more interesting to read a detailed description of a beautiful face, than to read "this is a beautiful woman". Let the reader make the judgements -- write it in a way that makes people think "she must be beautiful" or "he must look like a mean bastard" rather than writing the subjective remark itself.

Apparently, you're right.  And I can see why, too.

[spawnloser]

If judgment is in the eye of the beholder than why do I have the idea that over half the people (both sexes) have about the same picture in their head when I say "beautiful chick" or "sexy guy"?  The truth is there is a standard norm that society accepts as beauty.

No...not everyone has the same idea of what is 'sexy' or 'beautiful' as there are different tastes about the world.  Maybe there is a common idea of what is 'sexy' around where you live...but on the other side of the planet, they probably have a completely different idea of what is 'sexy.'

[Cuusardo]

Let's take present day Earth, for example.  

In the USA, the generalized ideal of beauty for a woman is supermodel-thin with virtually no body hair.  In some countries in Europe, the ideal of beauty is a volutpuous woman with hairy armpits and legs (aka the natural look).  It truly is a big difference when you think of it.  I mean, back in Rennaissance times the ideal woman was Rubenesque, because it was a sign that she was well fed.  

Even in societies with certain ideals, everyone's preference is different.  Some men like women with large breasts, while others prefer women with smaller ones.  Some women like tanned, muscular men, while others are attracted to tall, scrawny men.  Some people find deeply tanned skin attractive, others prefer pale skin.

My point is, no one can tell you what is beautiful.  That is up to the individual to decide.  Just because YOU think you are attractive does not mean that everyone who looks at you will think so.  And that is why words like "beautiful" or "cute" or "handsome" do not belong in mdescs.

[grog]

For example, I've met women who think that I'm attractive!  I don't really agree with them, I wouldn't date me even if I was a woman.  

And I've also met plenty of women who prefer my ex-roommates, one of those thin hairless types who puts on weight (in wiry muscle)when he works out (and we both do that a lot) and a tall gangly guy who hits on everything remotely cute with breasts. (and some things without)

We do have tastes that converge, but all in all we also find some women attractive that the other shakes his head and goes, "Your choice, man" (not including tall gangly guy, who finds anything remotely cute with breasts to be attractive)


This post has been edited for your protection, it has been edited because this (HA) writer can't seem to formulate a correct sentence.

[Gorobei]

Ugh... Paris Hilton...

[spawnloser]

Ugh... Paris Hilton...

Agreed.

[Carnage]

If judgment is in the eye of the beholder than why do I have the idea that over half the people (both sexes) have about the same picture in their head when I say "beautiful chick" or "sexy guy"?  The truth is there is a standard norm that society accepts as beauty.

No...not everyone has the same idea of what is 'sexy' or 'beautiful' as there are different tastes about the world.  Maybe there is a common idea of what is 'sexy' around where you live...but on the other side of the planet, they probably have a completely different idea of what is 'sexy.'

Actually, beauty comes down to proportions of the face. Everything needs to be in the right proportion (called the Golden something. Mean?) to be seen as beautiful. Marilyn Monroe, called one of the most beautiful women of all time, met or nearly met the Golden whatever 100%.

[Krath]

If your face is completely symmetrical, you are a beautiful person. It is a proven fact. Is that what you were talking about, Carnage?

[Lazloth]

Golden section (or divine proportion).

[Carnage]

Yes, that's what I'm referring to, Krath and Lazloth. It goes a bit more beyond 100% symmetrical though. The nose has to be a certain proportion in relation to the other features, etc. Your face can be perfectly symmetrical but if your nose is gigantic and your eyes are tiny you're not going to be drop-dead gorgeous.

[grog]

Large eyes are considered attractive, mainly because a baby's eyes are usually large in proportion to it's face.   It's genetics insuring we find children cute enough that we won't drown them when they . . . well act like children.

[My 2 sids]

In the USA, the generalized ideal of beauty for a woman is supermodel-thin with virtually no body hair.

But, you are proving my point.  There are generalized norm standards among any group.  You all can bitch, whine, and give examples to the contrary all you want.  The fact remains that there are norms accepted by the majority of any society.  It's no different than someone's example of a dwarf with "noble" features.

[Crestor]

As 2 sids said, it's still subjective, Golden Section or not.  Yes, human beings on Earth may well find symmetry appealing (though even then there will be those who don't).  But who's to say whether humans on Zalanthas, or any of the other races, feel the same way?

The initial point was, I think, that even if it's true of a large proportion of people, even if we do accept that the Golden Section applies on Zalanthas, even if we accept that elves, dwarves and even mantis have the same standards as humans...there'll always be one that doesn't.  And having a word such as 'beautiful' in a desc is implying that whoever looks at them finds them beautiful.

Unless you'd like to take the stance that the word 'beautiful' in that context is simply a synonym for 'symmetrically-faced'.  But I don't think we want to go down that road.

[Cuusardo]

Large eyes are considered attractive, mainly because a baby's eyes are usually large in proportion to it's face.   It's genetics insuring we find children cute enough that we won't drown them when they . . . well act like children.

I think babies aren't cute.  Most of them are ugly in my opinion.

[My 2 sids]

Ok, quick note about the eyes.

A person's pupil will dialate when they are arroused.  That's the eye thing.  People are drawn to people with large eyes (an optical illiusion by the pupil) are sexy because of our natural attractivness to other humans who are arroused.  (All about reproduction people... everything is)

The baby...
Actually babys (when first born) tend to look like their fathers.  Mother Nature's way of saying "This is -your- kid.  Raise it."

[Malifaxis]

The baby...
Actually babys (when first born) tend to look like their fathers. Mother Nature's way of saying "This is -your- kid. Raise it."

It's fucking genetics that passes on physical relation traits, and from my experience, the children have an equal percentage change of looking like either.  Mother Nature could give two farts and a fuck about who raises the children.  It's Nature, it continues regardless of whether your damn sack of larval human flesh lives or dies.

RE: Lazloth, Carnage, and Krath:

The golden section, as it is termed, is a damn artistic point.  Just because someone's face is symmetrical does not make them beautiful.  Any person, literally any, can be beautiful, if they are able to take what they are given and use it correctly.  Am I able to judge what is correct?  No.  But I've seen it.  I've seen a relatively overweight woman with more than a bit of acne take about 80% of a bar's attention because she was able to use what she had, and project her sensuality through motion and speech.  It was actually very humorous to watch the *ahem* 'attractive' women in the bar sneer and hiss and spit about it.

The first time I saw the word 'attractive' in an sdesc, I literally had to stop myself from PKilling them just to purify the damn game world.  No one is attractive to everyone, or even close to everyone.  If you have the basic, intrinsic, instinctive need to play a damn F'me PC, then bloody well go and put some effort in to it.  Don't force it down our damn throats.

Malifaxis the confrontational.

[grog]

I think babies aren't cute.  Most of them are ugly in my opinion.

So you don't find baby kittens, little puppies, and various other large eyed animals cute?  

Besides, one of the cool things about humans is that we can programmed (self or otherwise) into finding almost anything attractive or unattractive.

[Cuusardo]

Animals are a TOTALLY different story.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter to me because regardless of anything you write,  I'm going to get a picture in my head of your PC and that's that.  It'll be roughly based on the size you give, but even the most well-written descs about hair color or skin tone won't matter to my mind's eye.

I had a mental picture of my own PC with a beard even though he never, ever had one.

[Angela Christine]

Yeah, what is so cute about a baby?  He's bald, he's fat, and he's never worked a day in his life.

These things are objective, and apply almost universally.  Sure, there may be a few people who think that having one eye higher than the other is sexy, but that is not the norm.  

Another cross-cultural attraction point is a woman's waist/hip ratio.  Accross the world .7 is the magick number.  This ratio is found in all body types, and all cultures.  "Little in the middle but she's got much back."    If you have 20 inch hips and a 14 inch waist you're in.  If you've got 50 inch hips and a 35 inch waist you're in.  Regarless of whether your culture worships thin or voluptous, the hourglass figure rules.  It is easy for a young woman to maintain this ratio, but very difficult for a pre-pubecent girl or a post-menapausal woman to do so.  There is a clue there, it is a sign of health and fertility.

Some folk like small breasts, some like melon breasts.  Some think a champaign glass is the perfect size.  Some think more than a handful is a waste.  Some think bigger is better, and way bigger is way better.  So you might think there is no concensus about breasts, but there is.  Breasts should be round and perky, not saggy.  It doesn't matter if you are talking double A or double D, pert and perky beats slack and saggy.  Being able to tuck your boobs into your pants is never sexy.  Go figure.  

Clear skin is always considered more attractive than skin marked by blemishes and weeping sores.  Who knew?


Now it is time for the obligatory disclaimer.  There are fetishists and other individuals that are attracted to something outside the norm.  There are amputee porn sites, for people that find missing limbs sexy.  There are shemale and t-girl porn sites, for people turned on by chicks with dicks.  Sometimes a whole culture will decide that something weird, like freakishly tiny feet, is sexy and people growing up in that culture will indeed find the freaky thing sexy.  But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of humans, regardless of culture, will find symetrical features, certain proportions, large eyes, clear skin, and a .7 hip waist ratio to be attractive. It is dishartening to think physical attractiveness comes down to math, but I guess everything comes down to math in the end.

The objective physical traits are obviously not the whole story.  As Krath mentioned, behavior plays into it too, but that is harder to quantify and is best represented by emotes, not in the description.  These physical traits will affect how attractive people rate photographs, and their first impression.  But I'm sure we've all met people that looked fantastic in photographs but were repulsive in person, because of their mannerisms, habits, speach and personality.  Likewise we've all met people that looked plain, even ugly, when we first met them but after a little while we forget we ever thought they were unattractive because they are so great to be with.  Charisma and personality are not objective physical traits.

But these physical patterns are keyed into the lizard brain, the primal bit at the back that we don't like to think about.  That is why guys don't care if a particularily round and gravity defying pair of breasts are natural or implants, the primitive part of the brain recognises the pattern, and says, "hubba hubba."  Nobody told it about implants, and it probably wouldn't care anyway.  Being able to afford cosmetic surgery also indicates that you are in a good breeding position, because if you can afford surgery then you can afford food.


AC

I think babies aren't cute.  Most of them are ugly in my opinion.

I agree 100%.

[Rindan]

Actually, beauty comes down to proportions of the face. Everything needs to be in the right proportion (called the Golden something. Mean?) to be seen as beautiful. Marilyn Monroe, called one of the most beautiful women of all time, met or nearly met the Golden whatever 100%.

I don't find Marilyn Monroe to be that attractive.  Personally, I would rather people find other ways to suggest what they want instead of bluntly saying it.  I won't start spaming wishes to have such people disemboweled, but I personally rate it about how I would rate an 'emote grins in agreement with ~runner about shit shoveling sucking hardcore'.  I am not going to say anything, but if they asked me for something they could do to improve their play, I would suggest less subjectiveness.

One of the larger issues is that you make it annoyingly hard to describe that person.  I remember one 'the hanDsomE, dark-haired'.  I had to tell someone to go find him.  Normally, I just reword the sdesc for convenience and throw in something about clothing or the mdesc if I remember it.  I am just a stupid human, not my character.  My memory sucks, especially when it comes to memorizing text.  If someone is wearing a bright pink shirt I am probably not going to notice in game, despite the fact that I would of course notice instantly if I visually saw it.  This means that in cases like 'the hanDsomE, dark haired man', I might have trouble describing him, not because my character wouldn't know, but because unless I feel like calling him hansom, I have just deprived myself of the most obvious features.  I personally think that it is just good courtesy to make your sdesc something that is descriptive for the OOC sake of people around you so that they don't need a copy of your mdesc in a text file all the time.  

It isn't a big deal, but it is a courtesy.  I would prefer people have their descriptions avoid subjectiveness, especially in the sdesc.

[Bestatte]

Not criticising Rindan...but your spelling error just begged me to react. I can't help myself, please forgive me and take it in the jesting manner in which it was intended.

And now (badum dum)

If I had to tell someone to find the "hansom dark-haired man" it would be very easy. I'd just ask them to look for the guy who resembles a taxi cab.

(Hansom is another word for a taxi cab. Handsome is the word to describe physical attractiveness).

You may laugh now and pelt me with strange and unusual morsels of putrid vegetation.

[flurry]

My first thought in reading this thread is something my h.s. creative writing teacher told the class: "show, don't tell."    And I think that applies here.   If you want your PC to be beautiful or handsome, show that in the description.     Describe them in a manner that resembles 'beautiful' to you.

As for the golden ratio and waist-to-hip ratio and all that ... yeah, there's some kind of common ground on what is "beautiful" or "handsome" or "attractive" or "breathtaking".   But those are much more subjective than other adjectives you see like "towering" or "buxom" or "light-skinned" or "thick-armed".

[spawnloser]

In the USA, the generalized ideal of beauty for a woman is supermodel-thin with virtually no body hair.

But, you are proving my point.  There are generalized norm standards among any group.  You all can bitch, whine, and give examples to the contrary all you want.  The fact remains that there are norms accepted by the majority of any society.  It's no different than someone's example of a dwarf with "noble" features.

Any society...but there are multiple societies...in real life and in in Armageddon.

Also, I've said it before and it bears repeating...Babies are nothing but crying, puking, shitting, pissing, eating balls of fat.

[Crestor]

Whether or not there are generalised ideals of beauty in a society, despite being an interesting argument, is not of true relevance here, because however common the ideal is there is ALWAYS someone who doesn't follow it.  Even if that's the human with psychological problems who doesn't find that utterly symmetrical-faced, wafer-thin, blonde supermodel attractive.

The point is that these things shouldn't shown under the descriptor of "beautiful" in game because for all that PC knows, another PC could be looking at them that violates the following of the ideal.  So your character is supposed to be universally attractive?  Tough luck.  Nobody's universally attractive, because even the most 'beautiful' people have people who don't lust after them.

Edit: further...I can perhaps see how some people might see it as alright, since the adjective 'beautiful' could be considered a replacement for the various things we've already ascribed to the common ideal of beauty - OOC beauty.  "The beautiful human" could be seen by players to refer to someone who fulfills our OOC ideas of beauty.  Our character wouldn't have to find them beautiful - but we would have a clear idea of how they were meant to look.

But if that's the case...then why not simply describe the character without using such a forceful adjective?

Second edit: I can't leave this post alone, can I?  :roll: Having re-read what I just wrote, I've come to the conclusion: the staff let it through, it was approved, and so long as the character's not being played as a bland f-me PC then I don't really have a problem with it.  Despite what my post might have suggested.  I just think there are better alternatives to 'beautiful'.

[Armaddict]

That 'Show, don't Tell' rule is the one I use, as well.

I've 'told' on occasion, but I try to steer away from it when I realize it.  I try to keep my description as unbiased and physical as possible.

When I see a description where someone desribes them selves as gorgeous or handsome...I tend to think that means they want their character to get laid

[Jacques]

It is dishartening to think physical attractiveness comes down to math, but I guess everything comes down to math in the end.

Yes, and it's all done in base 4. (Bonus points to whoever figures out WTF I'm talking about here)

Back to the original topic, however. I tend think that the use of descriptors such as "beautiful" and the like are better done when qualified (e.g. more beautiful than a 3-day-old corpse), if at all. However, it is important to remember that many of these kinds of things are relative. For example - someone being "tall". Tall relative to WHAT? Have we ever seen the sdesc "The impressively tall halfling?" Why not? A 4-cord halfling would be a GIANT among his own kind. Or a "firm" bosom - firm relative to what? The "tuck them in the belt" woman AC was describing? Relative to granite? Did I actually go squeeze them to verify this? In many cases we use these relational words to give a GENERAL feeling for the image that we're trying to project. So if you don't WANT to think the person is particularly beautiful... don't!

But don't hate me because I'm beautiful.  :wink:

[X-D]

Some things there is no way around, like when you are playing a half-giant and you see "the tiny gaunt figure in a hooded cloak" "the massive towering man lowers the hood of his cloak"  assess -v towering, less the half your height, he weighs many times less then you, or however it goes.

But I think it was Sanvean that said once that descriptions are based on the human norm..or something like that.

Sorta like when I'm playing a dwarf, the closer a human char is to human beauty, the uglier that char is to my dwarf.

As far as the system that has been figured out to judge human beauty, it is probly right, but to me, people that fit that are simply boring, average if you will.

Even if that's the human with psychological problems who doesn't find that utterly symmetrical-faced, wafer-thin, blonde supermodel attractive.

Boring.
Blonde looks sickly to me, thin also does, not much good for survival or having children, wear out too easy in the sack too. :twisted:

[Cuusardo]

Or a "firm" bosom - firm relative to what? The "tuck them in the belt" woman AC was describing? Relative to granite? Did I actually go squeeze them to verify this?

I could get WAY out of hand commenting on this...   :lol:

[spawnloser]

I always thought the descriptors should be relative to race.

[ShaLeah]

On Zalanthas beauty comes down to how well your describe is written and how well you can roleplay. That's the bottom line. It never fails to tickle me, the ugly ass character with the good looking girlfriend.  One perfect example of this was Fatty Tor, ugly as sin but that didn't matter, he had plenty of women fawning over him. I can't think of any other famous older characters I could safely use as an example, tis late and I am sleepy. Thought of one!  A certain ruby skinned person, plain as hell really but it was written beautifully and the person could RP like no one's business.  
My point is that I am the judge. And you are, and he is, and she is, and we're all the judge on what our characters find attractive.

[Ayashah]

Actually, beauty comes down to proportions of the face. Everything needs to be in the right proportion (called the Golden something. Mean?) to be seen as beautiful. Marilyn Monroe, called one of the most beautiful women of all time, met or nearly met the Golden whatever 100%.

Did you know that Marilyn Monroe wore a size 14?  So the trend for skinny ass, bony structure stuff came after her.

[UnderSeven]

I am heavily disinclined to go with genetic beauty.. I know for the most part it's true that equal proportions are considered beautiful, but genetics are not the same across the charts.  Mutations will lead to different feelings for what is beautiful.  I for one do not find Minroe beautiful at all, infact I find her very much not so. Ultimatly I am inclined to agree with Shal here.

You can write your vision of a breath taking person all you want, muscular men or big breasted women and put 'gorgeous' in their sdesc, but that doesn't mean a thing.  I for one prefer much niether of the above.  Everyone likes something different. You'll never see me use subjective words in my descs, but for those who do, I don't really care anyway, I'll look at your desc and make up my own mind about what my char thinks.  Yes, the judge is always the beholder.

[Ayashah]

I agree with Underseven and Shaleah. I have to admit though, myself, as a player, tends to automatically dismiss people with beautiful, handsome, imp, damsel, etc in their short. Why? Because it just makes me assume that they are forcing opinions on their pc and it lends an impression of wanting to 'hook' up. I remember being pretty disgusted that 'imp' wasnt a deformed person but instead was trying to imply their personality in that word within the short description.

I did, on one occasion, decide to basically 'mess' with someone that had handsome in his description. hehehe  Since he was so 'handsome' I had my pc stare, stutter, get all flustered around him as a hoot for me one time. I am glad I did because we ended up rp'ng and found out he was actually a really great rp'r, not the 'lets go mudsex till ARM freezes over' type. BUT had he not had that in his short description, would I have ever rp'd with him? Who knows.

As for whomever was putting down f-me made pcs, to each their own. Look at the npcs that are wealthy. Look at the rich clothes in the shops. As much as everyone wants to toss out that its NOT the norm for sexy, that those that have more cushion for pushing are sexy, the items and game world tends to contradict it. Add to the fact that those that do the hiring dont tend to turn away the rail thin, blonde super models as their aides, cooks, etc. Nor do they turn away the Flash Gordon types for the same things. So in the end, its alot of things that make up what is beautiful/handsome in the mud and alot of that is made up by what the player decides in their own mind.

[UnderSeven]

I've used imp before, it's not nessicarily deformed, but rather can be just about anyone whose short.  I think Imp can be a perfectly fair word for a description in some causes. Damsal I imagine looking a little drab.  That's really not such a bad one either, the difference with a word like damsal versus beautiful is one is projecting an imagine on their own char and the other is projecting an oppinion on your char.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

You'll never see me use subjective words in my descs, but for those who do, I don't really care anyway, I'll look at your desc and make up my own mind about what my char thinks.  Yes, the judge is always the beholder.

Percisely.

[Angela Christine]

I found a post that details the guidlines app reviewers are working with:

I just ran across what I'd written for app reviewers. I'll post it here so you know what guidelines staff members are working by:

Inappropriate adjectives: do not reject someone for adjectives like "steel" or "icy" on the grounds that these are unknown in Zalanthas. The majority of the people reading the description will originate on our own planet and will know what steel and ice are. On the flip side, unless someone has found something incredibly obscure to use in their description, they should generally be encouraged to use Zalanthan adjectives and comparisons. It is all right for them to have tattoos of anakores or shiks, even if they do not live in those creatures' hunting grounds.

You can reject an application on the grounds of an unoriginal or outlandish name, but the best rule of thumb for this would be "Would the name be jarring if you ran across it in a fantasy novel?" Familiar fantasy names, such as Frodo, Drizzt, Merlin, etc, should be rejected, but use a grain of common sense and consider whether the source is something most players would know, as opposed to only those versed in ancient Sumerian verse. Sometimes players use names taken from Dark Sun novels. I let these through because I have sampled a few of the Dark Sun novels and would rather have my eyes gouged out than become familiar enough with these works to actually recognize any of the names.

Rejecting on the basis of short description: if it's something like "a" instead of "the", use the web editor to fix it. Subjective words such as "handsome" or "alluring" are allowable if they have the description to back them up. Behavior words such as "serene" or "silent" are not good -- but sometimes allowable if they can be changed to something like "the serene-looking". Changeable words, such as "dirty" or "cleanshaven" are perfectly fine. Words like "warrior," "concubine," etc. should be rejected unless some special concept like "the dirty flearidden beggar" has been cleared ahead of time.

Rejecting on the basis of keywords: people should have, at a minimum, the words that are contained in their sdesc, with the obvious exception of "the". Sometimes people get confused and include a lot of unnecessary keywords, thinking that since they're mentioned in the main description, they should be included. Generally, simply edit these out. We are relaxing the requirement on having to have the racial keywords -- half-elves should be able to "pass" if they want to and this seems to be an unnecessary hoop that has been frustrating many people.

Rejecting on the basis of main description: descriptions need to be at least four lines long. The last line need not absolutely be a complete line, but remember that the app process tells them four complete lines. If they have behaviors in the description that are specific, such as 'his hand restlessly reaches for his dagger', they can be rejected but something like 'looks back at you' is (marginally) allowable. Conditions that may change over the course of play, such as degree of dirtiness or grooming, are permissible. As with sdescs, Zalanthan references are fine unless they are obscure to the point where most players would not know the term. As always, use common sense, and try to be newbie friendly. Reading the section written for the players on descriptions in the introductory section of the webpage may be helpful here.

Rejecting on the basis of background: references to the following must be cleared with the appropriate immortal before they can be used: Blackwing, Tan Muark, Anyali or any of the noble houses. If there is a problem with chronology, i.e. they said they were born during the fall of Tuluk but their age means they would have been a year old at that time, it is allowable to edit the background or age. Please remember to drop them a note saying you've done it. Players should feel some degree of freedom to be creative with their backgrounds, although not to the point of absurdity (bastard child of the Lord of Ash, Tek's cousin once removed, etc.)

Rejecting on the basis of clan: needless to say, clans should be approved by the appropriate immortal, and that person should have told the player to put a note to the effect of "Concept approved by X" in their background, preferably in the top line. (This does not mean reject them if it appears in the last line rather than the top.) It is better to take the stance that the player has mistakenly forgotten to include the "Approved by" text in their background when writing the rejection message. Write a friendly reminder like, "This concept/clan requires imm approval in the form of "Approved by X" in your background. Please apply again and include the name of the immortal sponsoring this concept. Thanks" instead of, "Hey, retard, you can't slip by me that easy! NO IMM SPONSOR == NO RAT EATING HALF-GIANT HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE, I AM KING, DIE DIE DIE. NGG NGG NGGG"

Overall, too much nitpicking alienates players, wastes their time and yours, and makes us look silly. Please try to avoid this. If you are uncertain about an application, leave it in the queue for someone else, or consult someone on the game about it. If you're feeling rushed for time, don't do applications, but leave them for someone who does have time to devote to them. We are and always have been about quality over quantity, and no one wants a rush job, especially not when it comes to making a first impression on a new player.

I suppose I didn't need the whole post, but it's a good read, right?  The relevent bit is, "Subjective words such as "handsome" or "alluring" are allowable if they have the description to back them up."  So you can be "the handsome mantis" as long as your description details your attractive insectile features.

I agree that words like that in the sdesc are somewhat undesireable, because it can make it difficult for others to quickly describe them, so it's probably better to keep those subjective type words in the main desc if you feel you need to use it.  

If you run accross someone like this, then a thesaurus can be your friend.  You might describe the hansome man as a pretty boy, slutty looking, all dolled up, catamite wannabe, healthy looking, looks like a ladies man, man-whore,  soft, pretty as a concubine, or other terms that get accross the fact that you are able to recognise  that most people would consider him hansome without giving the impession that your character is attracted to him.

Magazines put out lists of the 100 most beautiful people and the sexiest man alive.  You may not agree with their choices, but most of the people that make the lists are conventionally attractive.  It would be surprising to see Marylin Manson in full make up on one of those lists, regardless if it was a conventional magazine from the USA,  China or Zambia, because Manson's "look" isn't considered beautiful in any culture I know of.  Some sub-cultures may find him attractive, but nobody is calling him a pretty boy.


AC