Traits

Posted in

#2051 by saeryen
2020-03-15 at 14:09
^^Thanks
#2052 by skorpiondeath
2020-03-15 at 14:13
@rampaa:
then let's get rid of all Ending tag tree
those are tags...I'm fine with them...do you wanna tag every character with "Harem Ending" too?? I'm not for that line of work. But again it's just meLast modified on 2020-03-15 at 14:19
#2053 by rampaa
2020-03-15 at 14:17
@skorpiondeath:
My point was "you should read the VN and discover yourself" is not a good argument. Also the equivalent of those "avoidable" traits would be another "avoidable" trait. If the question was whether I would want all character whose death can be avoided to be tagged with Avoidable Death, I'd definitely say yes.
#2054 by skorpiondeath
2020-03-15 at 14:19
Warfoki specifically asks for non-applicable flag to be implemented for traits as well at t12507.4.
Then another reason to wait for him.. I would gladly hear what's his idea about traits. Be advised that in that regard if traits superseed tags, then why in the hell do we need them? To tag those 2% VN without characters added to them? I will prefer to define what tags are for and what traits are for...if their objective is the same then why should we tag character and after that make a double effort by putting tags on the VN?Last modified on 2020-03-15 at 14:27
#2055 by skorpiondeath
2020-03-15 at 14:21
"you should read the VN and discover yourself"
It's an argument because I go spoil myself about sexual aspect to be sure to fin that particular content....not to paint a graph with every possible outcome in every route to decide if someone is raped or not and then decide to read VN based on that...
#2056 by rampaa
2020-03-15 at 14:29
if their objective is the same then why should we tag character and after that make a double effort by putting tags?
Their objective is not *exactly* the same. Tags can cover some "technical" stuff that traits cannot (Setting, Plot). Traits on the other hand allow you to know exactly which character does what.

But for example all the Character tree is actually redundant with traits. But that is simply because VNDB lacks the proper filters for characters and character relation thingy so we cannot just abandon them. (t12970.9)

Also characters/traits are not bound to specific VNs, so when you apply, say, X sexual act trait to a character, we cannot know in which VN does she do that act exactly. So even though most of the Sexual Content tag tree is also redundant with the traits, we cannot abandon them either, simply because the model is not powerful enough for that.Last modified on 2020-03-15 at 14:48
#2057 by rampaa
2020-03-15 at 14:35
if someone is raped or not and then decide to read VN based on that...
You do you. But that does not become a bad use case just because you don't do that. I can list lots of traits I'd never use to you, which has 0 bearing on my decision to play a VN, yet I am sure some people care and that's why those traits are created and get used. If a trait is not prone to misuse then denying it for the sole reason of "*I* have no use case for it" does not make much sense to me.Last modified on 2020-03-15 at 14:38
#2058 by skorpiondeath
2020-03-15 at 14:48
I'm telling you my opinion about it you tell yours...so basically I don't think they will be useful is a thing because mixing all the possible outcomes even if technically correct just makes a big mess of possibility on a character. We can then have Blowjob by protagonist, or Doggy Style by others... are they technically correct? yes.
If those people you tell exist that's their time to write something on the boards, at least I know they speak for themselves because I can tell you I think people would not search for those things like you wrote they are interested... it's just two opinions clashing...
That said we were two discussing the matter I wasn't alone. But you just need some patience and wait for warfoki... he has the global idea on where things should go so.Last modified on 2020-03-15 at 14:48
#2059 by rampaa
2020-03-15 at 14:54
We can then have Blowjob by protagonist, or Doggy Style by others... are they technically correct?
That is a slippery slope. It's like saying if you have Armored Panties then you can also have a trait like "panties with a single dot" and since such a detail would be "useless" let's get rid of Armored Panties.

If those people you tell exist
Cogito, ergo sum!

But you just need some patience and wait for warfoki...
Yes, I am fine with that.

In the meanwhile, can you correct Pre-Story Virginity Lost to Protagonist's name? It should be "Pre-Story Virginity Loss to Protagonist".
#2060 by skorpiondeath
2020-03-15 at 15:07
Cogito, ergo sum!
Cogito, ergo sum, cogito...

By using a more specific clothing is surely debatable but at least it replaces the less specific trait...opening avoidable/only/protagonist/others...it's completly on another level... but you know every one has is own idea where to throw their buckets of shit.
In that regard most of my traits went trough the queue or got approved by other moderators, and I always write in private to warfoki to discuss them...if you want to accuse about something at least do that in plain sight, there's no need to be subtle about it, at least without offend other people intelligence.Last modified on 2020-03-15 at 15:08
#2061 by rampaa
2020-03-15 at 15:14
I am not accusing you of anything, nor do I intend to offend you, if I came across that way please forgive me.

What I am simply saying is your argument depends on a logical fallacy. You are saying if Avoidable Rape by Others is accepted, then it follows that we could end with absurd combinations like "Doggy Style by Others", which is not true. I just tried to give an example with the same absurdity to get my point across. I didn't intend to offend you.
#2062 by beliar
2020-03-15 at 15:26
I'll just add, that I discussed the issue with Skorpion beforehand and I was the one that rejected those traits. My and Skorpion's opinions aligned that an overabundance of avoidable/unavoidable traits is doing a disservice to the other traits and diluting the traits among many low fidelity sub-traits that really don't tell anything of import.

However, Rampaa said he is okay with waiting Warfoki's decision, so let's tone down this discussion a bit.

P.S. I have Fixed the Lost/Loss issue.
#2063 by skorpiondeath
2020-03-15 at 15:32
@beliar: you need to tell me and not rampaa to tone down...I'm always over the top. In that I surely don't make a good "moderator"...

@rampaa: Listen I'm not offended...but try to be on this side of the barricate (moderators) for once. We are trying to bring queue forward at the best of our possibilities without warfoki wich is actually by far the best in doing that...
When I think about rape, bestiality and such I think I would like to know if I can globally avoid that content in the VN...that's why I like it in the tags. In the traits you do that on a character basis, wich "personally" (so it's not final) don't find it useful because it fills characters with overabundance of if/only/others/avoidable etc...
#2064 by funnerific
2020-03-16 at 02:07
Hey everyone, it was nice discovering that "Pre-Story Virginity Loss to Protagonist" is a thing now. What about games that give you a flashback of that scene though, making the heroine qualify for a "virgin sex" trait - she technically ends up with both "Not a virgin" (through this child trait) and "Virgin sex", so are you supposed to apply both or does one of the two go away?Last modified on 2020-03-16 at 02:07
#2065 by naiohoras
2020-03-16 at 02:18
I suppose you just need to apply Pre-Story Virginity Loss to Protagonist since flashback is something that happened before the story begin.
#2066 by rampaa
2020-03-16 at 02:27
I think you should apply both. Because (a) technically they both apply (b) applying both will give us an additional information: ie. We will "see" how she lost her virginity to protagonist with a flashback.
#2067 by fuukanou
2020-03-16 at 03:49
Could you have both "Not a Virgin" and "Pre-Story Virginity Loss to Protagonist" if for whatever reason "Not a Virgin" is less of a spoiler than "Pre-Story Virginity Loss to Protagonist"?

In the case that the heroine had sex with the protagonist and he forgot about it before the story started, and when he had sex with the heroine for the first time in the story he's surprised she's not a virgin, but it's only revealed much later that he was the one who took her virginity in the first place
#2068 by rampaa
2020-03-16 at 03:54
I'd personally be against it, it would only look like someone forgot to remove the more general trait in that case, so that message wouldn't get across either way. I would personally mark it with Pre-Story Virginity Loss to Protagonist and be done with it.
#2069 by rampaa
2020-03-22 at 00:32
Should Concubine apply to blood related characters, because they cannot get married? Or should it be used mainly for harem members who are not the main wife? Also why the hack does it apply to characters like Shiina Miyako? Can someone enlighten me on the matter?Last modified on 2020-03-22 at 00:33
#2070 by naiohoras
2020-03-22 at 16:32
historically speaking, concubine usually applied to those who are in sexual relationship with a king who's already married. they were (are?) accepted by law, and society (somewhat).
concubine was positioned between sex slave and wife since they've got some rights a wife got, though very few, and it's different between places. (this link even says they've got nothing)

this tag is indeed really tricky, and I see the tag isn't really popular either because of that. I don't know how it would apply in today's society but I don't think it applies to blood-related characters since it's not accepted by law and society. they're just your (un)usual couple.Last modified on 2020-03-22 at 16:35
#2071 by shining17
2020-03-22 at 16:37
Blood relation should be based on biological factor, not laws or culture or society imo.

Plus, there are cases in history where women voluntary joined a royalty's concubine because of various factors. So not all of them were sex slaves.Last modified on 2020-03-22 at 16:44
#2072 by naiohoras
2020-03-22 at 16:51
Blood relation should be based on biological factor
do you forget that society back then were not into science, and more upholding religious and moral values?

Plus, there are cases in history where women voluntary joined a royalty's concubine because of various factors. So not all of them were sex slaves.
indeed, that's why I said "concubine was positioned between sex slave and wife since they've got some rights a wife got, though very few", they could enjoy those royal's wealth too.
#2073 by shining17
2020-03-22 at 16:55
Even if at that time no one knows science yet so what? If you fathered a child, that child is yours, regardless of whether he/she was born in 200 AD or 2000. Science is fact.Last modified on 2020-03-22 at 17:17
#2074 by naiohoras
2020-03-22 at 17:04
I mean, the society back then was indeed against incest. not because of science, but because of religious and moral values. take the Hapsburg for example, they were still against incest, but because of law allowed the royal married their cousins, they did it. also, don't forget Adam's sons or Lot's daughters, because it was "crucial" for them to inbreed so they did, the religion itself still forbid incest after that.Last modified on 2020-03-22 at 17:05
#2075 by rampaa
2020-03-23 at 00:08
I agree that Concubine normally should not apply to blood related characters, because it would be both redundant (because most of the time blood related characters cannot marry) and it just sounds wrong and misleading. But the current definition allows it to be used like that, and in fact it is used like that. I think (though I am not too sure) making this trait more harem-centric might be the way to go.