Traits

Posted in

#2676 by Mrkew
2021-11-27 at 23:46
< report >Should quarter-Japanese be put under half-japanese, with it possibly being added as its alias, or should I propose a new trait? There are not that many of them, but they do appear sometimes.
#2677 by historyeraser
2021-11-28 at 00:13
< report >Quarter Japanese was already rejected as a trait a long time ago. Too specific.
#2678 by beliar
2021-11-29 at 21:29
< report >Ezezin, I would approve Romantically Related, but the name of the trait is so bad, I just can't. Please, think of a better name.
#2679 by Mrkew
2021-11-29 at 22:10
< report >Okay, I guess I'll just keep putting quarter-japanese chars under half-japanese. Not that big of a deal.
#2680 by beliar
2021-11-29 at 22:11
< report >Are there a lot of those to justify a new trait? I'm kinda surprised if there are.
#2681 by Mrkew
2021-11-29 at 22:28
< report >No, there are not a lot. I'm just saying it feels kind of weird to tag them with half-japanese without it being an alias. Of course you could ommit it entirely, but you can't possibly tag a quarter-japanese who was born in Japan and lived there their entire life with one of the foreigner tags.
#2682 by NaioHoras
2021-11-29 at 23:22
< report >about half-(...) traits, it might be more fitting to rename them to (...)-blooded (like this Divine Blooded) so it include all possible situations, but Japanese-blooded sounds so wrong...

btw, I'm suprised you approved Bad Cooking, Beliar. I proposed it while I was half-asleep and in kyun-kyun-kya-kya state to a certain heroine :P
#2683 by beliar
2021-11-29 at 23:37
< report >Actually wasn't sure about that trait. But oh well - maybe it will work out.
#2684 by NaioHoras
2021-11-29 at 23:59
< report >eh, while I myself think it's a bad trait, it's a harmless one. might as well use it since it's approvedLast modified on 2021-11-30 at 00:00
#2685 by skorpiondeath
2021-11-30 at 12:37
< report >
while I myself think it's a bad trait, it's a harmless one
A bad trait is always a dangerous one... and hear you saying that you don't like your own proposed trait makes me think...well maybe it was to deny.
That said we changed a bit in a way that should only be used for characters that are always bad at cooking. There are plenty of characters that suck at cooking with scenes where they burn everything or meal taste like socks. In this way I don't know how it can be a bad trait.Last modified on 2021-11-30 at 12:39
#2686 by barfboy
2021-11-30 at 13:06
< report >Religious figures, Based on a Real Person
or Based on a Fictional Character

I don't want to upset anybody's beliefs but certain characters like Prophets, Angels and Deities tow the line depending on what religion people may belong to. How should I tag them?Last modified on 2021-11-30 at 13:07
#2687 by warrior82
2021-11-30 at 17:45
< report >For what reason do staff believe including a characters generation would be useless? I am curious to know.Last modified on 2021-11-30 at 17:45
#2688 by beliar
2021-11-30 at 20:28
< report >@barfboy: There always might be someone who gets offended. That said, I do believe such number of people within the VN community is in the minority. After all, no one called a fatwa on vndb yet, despite us having something like Bernd und das Rätsel um Unteralterbach, which is a game that literally allows you to kill Muhammed...

That said, a religious figure does not equal a religious figure. Deities, angels and whatnot should be marked as fictional. Prophets are a bit more tricky, but while we have no direct evidence Siddharta Gautama, Jesus or Muhammed existed, I think we can label them Based on a Real Person.

Rule of thumb, don't think too hard, Barfboy. Apparently other users aren't thinking either, because I saw King Arthur tagged as Based on a Real Person on the db. Gave me a laugh.

For what reason do staff believe including a characters generation would be useless?
So you want to go and arbitrarily tag characters as "boomer, millennial, etc." based on their age and the game release date, even if that's completely irrelevant to the Vn in question? Ummm, why the fuck? That's the most random proposal I have ever heard...
#2689 by barfboy
2021-11-30 at 21:10
< report >Fair enough. Would Based on a Religious Person help? I dunno, was just trying to think this through. I noticed Jesus Christ in the database and went, huh, that's a bag of cats.
#2690 by Mrkew
2021-11-30 at 21:19
< report >Even the biggest of fedoras agree that Jesus existed.
#2691 by beliar
2021-11-30 at 21:32
< report >
Would Based on a Religious Person help
Not sure there are enough controversial religious figures to mandate a new trait. basically only the three I have called out, and as I have said, we may label them as Based on a Real Person.

Even the biggest of fedoras agree that Jesus existed
Not gonna go into that debate, but we have loads more evidence regarding the historicity of some people that have lived way before JC, than regarding the Man himself.
#2692 by flowerno9
2021-12-01 at 13:20
< report >#2686
Religious figures, Based on a Real Person
or Based on a Fictional Character

I don't want to upset anybody's beliefs but certain characters like Prophets, Angels and Deities tow the line depending on what religion people may belong to. How should I tag them?

#2688
@barfboy: There always might be someone who gets offended. That said, I do believe such number of people within the VN community is in the minority. After all, no one called a fatwa on vndb yet, despite us having something like Bernd und das Rätsel um Unteralterbach, which is a game that literally allows you to kill Muhammed...

That said, a religious figure does not equal a religious figure. Deities, angels and whatnot should be marked as fictional. Prophets are a bit more tricky, but while we have no direct evidence Siddharta Gautama, Jesus or Muhammed existed, I think we can label them Based on a Real Person.

#2689
Fair enough. Would Based on a Religious Person help? I dunno, was just trying to think this through. I noticed Jesus Christ in the database and went, huh, that's a bag of cats.

May I suggest something?
I think whether a religious figure should be considered Based on Real Person or Based on a Fictional Character should be determined based on what consensus among historians says.

Wikipedia should be a good place to check whether such figures are considered historical or not. Its articles on some religious figures tend to have a section which talks about their historicity and all the known sources aviable on them. And if the religious figure is considered a myth then the wording makes it very clear the article is refering to a figure in a book or in a myth.

Jesus, Muhammad, Siddharta Gautama (and also Krishna) are indeed considered historical figures, even thought the exact events in their lives are uncertain.

If the consensus is that a person was real, then Based on Real Person should be used. If the consensus is that they are mythical (or legendary) Based on a Fictional Character should be used.
In case there is no consensus (like with Moses for example) then neither of those traits should be added and it should be left ambiguous.
#2693 by Ezezin
2021-12-01 at 16:46
< report >@Beliar, following #2678.
How about "Romantic Gestures" or "Romantic Acts"? Of course, with this name Infidelity, Breakup, Netorase and Netori (steals the SO) will be out of the meta-trait, but those can go in another umbrella trait named "Relationship Problems" with the difference being non-applicable but searchable.
#2694 by Latnemurtsni
2021-12-03 at 08:29
< report >Since there's been updates with the tentacle/slime traits, should link be marked as 'non-applicable' since it now has child traits? Also maybe link should be broken up into consensual/non as well?
#2695 by beliar
2021-12-03 at 18:53
< report >Actually, it's been pointed out to me that many people add traits based on CG galleries and might not know the context of the game. Thus I reverted the Slimes, Tentacles, Insects parent trait to 'applicable', because it's better they add a less precise parent trait, rather than guess and add a wrong child trait.
#2696 by Latnemurtsni
2021-12-04 at 04:12
< report >True, that makes more sense.
#2697 by historyeraser
2021-12-04 at 07:03
< report >Apotheosis shouldn't be a "Engages in" trait because I'd imagine there would be plenty of instances where the apotheosis isn't done as a conscious decision by the character in question. Like if another character forces the tagged character to become a god as part of a ritual or experiment or something. "Subject of" makes more sense.
#2698 by beliar
2021-12-04 at 10:39
< report >I was unsure where to put it. There could be cases where the character initiates their ascension, or cases where its forced on them. I suppose maybe 'subject of' does sound a little better.
#2699 by glowworm
2021-12-04 at 16:25
< report >regarding link : Am I correct in the understanding that this applies to all saimin games in which the characters didn't consent to being mind-controlled//hypnotized, or if they did, they didn't consent to having sex while under that influence?

If so, it seems like a bit of a silly trait, the venn diagram of this and the various hypnosis-mindcontrol traits being a circle. That is, just about every instance of mind control / hypnosis is rape. The reverse, a consensual trait, would actually be distinguishing; albeit I can't think of a single game it would apply to.Last modified on 2021-12-04 at 16:34
#2700 by beliar
2021-12-04 at 16:41
< report >Hmm, you do have a point. What do the others think? Is the trait (and tag) useless and should be replaced with a consensual variation instead?