Sexual Trait Overhaul

Posted in

#1 by warfoki
2015-01-12 at 18:20
< report >*sigh*

Well, let's address the elephant in the room then. There are four major issues here, so let me talk about them in the order of importance.

Edit: I'll start to implement things this weekend. So there's about 5 days to discuss modification on the plan. I know that isn't much, but I want to be completely done with everything here before the end of January, since a new semester starts in February. Once I'll start things, I'd really appreciate if the community would help giving this a kick start by applying sexual traits on the characters of more well known titles.

1) Passive / Active roles:
The Sexual trait-family should have been handled like Engages in and Subject of. We don't have a single Events trait family, instead we have Engages in and Subject of. Sexual should have been handled the same way. Instead we have a very sketchy description here, that prescribed the use of all of the child traits in this section, namely:

These traits are intended to be used on a single character for a sexual act, instead of both characters involved. The aim is to clarify the confusion of which one being the active and which one being the passive partner in such an acts.

So, traits like Missionary, Doggy Style, etc. should only be added to the partner that is being penetrated, and traits like Fellatio should only be added to the performing partner.

Well, this isn't really clear. In addition, almost none of the actual traits specify which character should be tagged with them, the active or the passive. And for the cherry on top: a lot of people don't read the descriptions anyway, and since there's no indication about issue in the trait names whatsoever, they've misapplied even the ones where the description mentions the issue.

Because of all this we have a large number of trait missaplications and characters involved. Much more than I could feasible clear up manually.

2) Sex Positions:
This section especially got out of hand. The main reason is because most people were okay with a few basic positions and used them abundantly. Then when new, more precise traits were added, the old traits suddenly became heavily misused. Example: Doggy Style is used for a LOT of characters, who in fact are having sex using the Quickie Fix Position. Doggy Style has been misused even AFTER Quickie Fix Position was accepted. And that points out the other problem: most people are not experts on sex positions and they don't care enough to change that. So some keep using Doggy Style, since "well, girl bends over and get fucked from behind, that's doggy in my book". And frankly, if you look up any of these sex positions collecting sites, you'll see that there are HUNDREDS of them, sometimes with as many imaginative names as many sources you can find for them. So without intervention this segment is just going to get more and more problematic.

3) Discrepancies between traits and their tag counterparts:
We have a number of cases where we have a tag and the trait with the same name covering different things. This could cause some confusion when searching, and also some potential misuse from people who only read one of the two descriptions, just assuming that the tag/trait counterpart with the same name covers the same thing. Example: Vibrator covers dildos as well, while we have two separate tags for those Vibrators and Dildos. The other example would be Gokkun and its tag counterpart, Gokkun.

4) Overlap with Engages in and Subject of:
Quite a number of sexual traits are not actually under Sexual. Instead they are filed under Engages in and Subject of. These are usually non-consensual traits, where the differentiation between active and passive participants are absolutely crucial. But we also have Sexual Fantasy, Pussy Shaving and some others here. I listed this as the smallest issue, since this doesn't break anything and the traits are fully functional. I still consider it a problem, since people browsing the available traits to see all of the sexual traits really shouldn't have to go through three main sections to see all of them.

------------------------------

So, here are my suggested solutions:

1)
*sigh* This is going to get people ticked off. And rightfully so. If I would've done this overhaul when I originally planned, right after I took over the tag mod duties from Echomateria, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Maybe back then I could've sorted things out manually without drastic measures. But that was then and this is now. Some parts of Sexual are simply beyond help at this point.

So, the plan: I rename the Sexual to Sexual (Passive) and create a brand new main parent trait with the name (Sexual (Active) (names are not final, it can be changed to something better if you have any ideas, but that's the least of our problems here). After that I split all of the intercourse related traits into two. No, I don't mean to create two child traits for each, I mean I repurpose the current one as either active or passive, then create its complimenter trait.

This of course will mean that quite a number of sexual traits will be suddenly even more misapplied than before. Here's what will happen to them. I'll save the following ones:

a) not intercourse related trait, where mistagging isn't a problem (e.g. Masturbation),
b) intercourse related, but without a passive side (e.g. Sex in Water) and
c) some only slightly problematic traits that are rarely mistagged and very easy to find the problematic applications (e.g. Boobjob: remove all of the dudes, check the one character marked as both female and male, make a bolean search with futanari, check those as well).

I'll put the aforementioned salvageable traits under a new meta-trait to make sure that I don't brake them accidentally, then I wipe out the rest of Sexual completely. Once that's done, I'll wait a day to make sure that the server removes all of the traits from every character (maybe I don't have to wait for that, I don't know, but I'll wait anyway just to be on the safe side) then approve them again and create their complementer traits.

Edit: Apparently that's not how the system works. So I'll until Yorhel comes up with a script to do that.

2)
Well, step 1) pretty much solves this issue as well, since Sex Positions and its child traits are going to be reseted with a clean slate. That being said, there's still the question of how to prevent this mess from happening again. I'd say that we should set up a few generic sex positions that is easily recognisable by everyone and then leave it at that. VNDB isn't the Kamasutra, nor should it be.

The sex positions I'd put here:
a) 69 (pretty much in its current form)
b) Doggy (Less specific: Receiving partner bends over and leans on/against something or goes down to all four, while the giving partner penetrates him/her from behind.)
c) Missionary (Less specific: Receiving partner lies on his/her back. The giving partner penetrates him/her anally or vaginally while facing him/her.)
d) Cowgirl (Less specific: Penetrating partner lies on his/her back. The receiving partner plays a more active part by riding him/her.)
e) Standing (Less specific: This character engages in sexual intercourse while standing on his/her feet, without bending over)
f) Sitting (Less specific: This character engages in sexual intercourse while sitting.)
g) Sideways (New: This character engages in sexual intercourse while laying on his/her side.)

And that's it. I know this does not cover everything perfectly, but is good enough. Trying to cover every possible sex position is a wild goose chase in my opinion, thus should be avoided.

3) No generic solution here. It should be handled on a case-by-case basis. I'll make a list of the problematic traits a bit later. I should also mention here that my end goal is to provide a trait counterpart with the same name for every sexual tag and the other way around. Well, with some exceptions of course (I'm not going to turn the complex incest tag-tree into traits.)

4) Once the rest is complete, I'll just move them under Sexual (Active) or Sexual (Passive) and that's it. I wish the rest of the problems would be this easy to fix...Last modified on 2015-01-13 at 08:28
#2 by anonymous
2015-01-12 at 18:36
< report >I think that's a good solution (especially re: sex position traits). Not a fan of active/passive, but I don't know if "Sexual (Engages in)" and "Sexual (Subject of)" sound too clunky or unclear.
#3 by warfoki
2015-01-12 at 18:38
< report >That reminds me: as per 3) those changes in handling sex positions will apply to the sex position tags as well. Just in case if that wasn't clear.
#4 by yorhel
2015-01-12 at 19:05
< report >
Once that's done, I'll wait a day to make sure that the server removes all of the trait from every character
If you're expecting that deleted/hidden traits are automatically removed from character entries in a similar way as how deleting a tag will remove all its votes, I have bad news. They'll have to be unlinked manually, cause deleting tags doesn't work well together with the revision system.

On the upside, it shouldn't be too hard for me to create a script to batch edit all characters and remove any deleted traits. Just gimme the call. (Sounds like a good thing to have such a script around anyway)Last modified on 2015-01-12 at 19:06
#5 by warfoki
2015-01-12 at 19:19
< report >Then please do that... Otherwise I'll have to go through thousands of characters and that'd make me cry...

I already have a candidate to test that script on: Cat Ears Hairstyle. Only four characters were tagged with this one, but I only remember Saya, no idea about the other three and the search engine won't turn anything up now that I've deleted the trait.
#6 by klutch
2015-01-12 at 20:01
< report >wait no i'm retardedLast modified on 2015-01-12 at 20:02
#7 by yirba
2015-01-12 at 22:39
< report >1) Sounds like a decent solution. Each of the Active/Passive traits would of course need to have clear information in the descriptions about who counts as active or passive.

2) Fine by me.

3) I think that if a trait shares its name with a tag, then they should both be equivalent and be about the same thing. It might be helpful to rename tags or traits to disambiguate the meaning. Not everyone is going to check the descriptions.

4) Looks good to me.
#8 by kelpie
2015-01-12 at 23:47
< report >This seems pretty good to me. Specific comments:

1) It seems a terrible shame to delete the 'problematic traits' entirely. It'll leave us with a bunch of characters with incomplete trait lists (well, not that we don't already have that) which we won't know about.

Alternatively, would it be possible to take all of the 'problematic' traits and make them meta (so they can't be anymore added to characters) and then make new pairs of traits duplicating them, so we could go through and verify what traits should be where, removing the old meta traits from each character as the new ones are added? Although that might be impossible if e.g. vndb would refuse to save characters with meta traits or silently remove them or whatever.

2) I agree that Sex Positions is troublesome, but I have two objections:

First, your model doesn't seem to account for some sex positions, like Spoons and Seventh Posture. And I presume that Group Sex will remain separate.

Second, it seems a shame to lose the specifics. For example, I think it's hilarious that Twin Blowjob is three times as common as Spoons. I'd actually rather go further in the other direction, so we can see just how much variety there is (or isn't) in a VN.

I would suggest, rather than eliminating specifics, to create a set of parent traits (like those you mention) and encourage users to apply the parent traits whenever they're unsure. Anyone interested can always go through the list and change them out for more specific traits, if they get the urge. Yes, it'd be a 'constant gardening' sort of situation, but that doesn't seem worse than now, and it should at least reduce errors at the expense of temporary imprecision.

3) No real comment, but, ugh, denormalization. All this duplication grates on me.

4) Super. This will indeed be an improvement.
#9 by warfoki
2015-01-13 at 00:39
< report >@Yirba:
1) Well, in case of intercourse related traits, the penetrating partner is the active, the receiving one is the passive. It's not exactly rocket science. In case of -jobs (footjob, boobjob, etc.) it should be obvious for the most part. Group sex is going to be active only (too many factors and possibilities). The first two categories among the salvageable traits going to be active only. Non consensual traits keep their current structure and that's about it.

3)

My point exactly.

@Kelpie:

1) Not possible. Marking a trait as meta will exclude it from the search engine. So the traits will remain on the characters, but that's it. The relevant characters won't be listed at the page of the trait and you won't be able to search for them either. So effectively you'd have no way to go through them.

But even if you could do it, I think you are seriously underestimating the size of the problem. We are talking about thousands of characters that you'd have to check here. Would take forever, while the remnants of the old traits would confuse newbies. Also, since I couldn't use the old traits, I'd had to create double the amount of new traits then in my way. This is going to be a lot of busywork already, I don't need it to be even more complicated.

tl;dr: Not possible, but even if it would, it'd still be a bad idea.

2)
For example, I think it's hilarious that Twin Blowjob is three times as common as Spoons.
Thank you for illustrating why don't we need all these sex positions. Twin blowjob is NOT more common then the spoons position. It's the contrary rather (based on my experiences at least and I've went through a few hundred CG-sets for tagging purposes in the past few years). It's just that twin blowjob is easily recognisable and thus people actually care tagging it, while Spoons is not obvious from the name, so a lot of people won't even think about tagging it.

The problem with the child trait system is that, as you've pointed it out yourself, not everything fits into these few categories. I could add more categories, but then I'd have to specify things more in the description, the names wouldn't be blatantly obvious and eventually I'd have to make new categories on the fly for new sex position traits that just don't fit under anywhere, or put it under one of the parent traits anyway, eventually making them meaningless.

So I'd eventually recreate the same damn problem I'm trying to sort out right now. So my answer is no. We'll lose information, yes. But I rather have a user friendly, clear system that easy to work with, but does not have accurate an accurate list of all the sex positions, than an unhandy, not search-firendly mess that has all the different positions covered, but good luck actually filtering out what you need.

And no, we it's unfortunately not possible to have it both ways. Not, unless someone periodically goes through every single character that's been tagged with any of the sex positions to see whether each and every trait applied is correct or not.

So, again, my answer is no.


3) So.. uhm... the fact that I try to optimalise a database as a database grates on you... Okay.Last modified on 2015-01-13 at 00:40
#10 by kelpie
2015-01-13 at 02:05
< report >@warfoki

1) Ah, I had forgotten that you can't search on meta traits. "Not possible" is fine if that's how it is. As for "it's too much work", though, I would like to point out that it is indeed the same amount of work whether you delete them or not. My worry is that people are probably much less likely to check if an already-existing character has all relevant traits than they are to add traits when adding characters, so deleting them is going to end with a bunch of traits missing that will be hard to notice. But, well, any option for solving this that doesn't involve using the database to keep track of the work still to be done is untenable, so if it can't be done, then there's nothing more to discuss.

2) I don't think that I agree that the database being currently incomplete is a good reason not to allow for more specificity. And "someone periodically goes through every single..." is after all the only way we currently ensure correctness, too. Further, "good luck actually filtering out what you need" seems to apply more to <i>your</i> proposal--you can always search for parent traits in mine, but without child traits, it's literally impossible to separate Quickie Fix from Doggy Style, for example.

More importantly, my first point still stands. Where do Spoons and Seventh Posture fit in? I know where they go under the current system, but I don't know where they'd go in your proposal. Surely we don't just ignore them, do we?

3) You misinterpreted me. I meant that it grated on me that you're forced to go through and duplicate things. Since, ideally, every game that has Doggy Style as a tag will also have a character with the relevant trait, it's a shame to force the manual labor of duplicating everything on you. Since not all characters are added to the DB and not all have all traits, it can't be fixed really, but it's still unfortunate. I was just sympathizing with the amount of work you need to do.
#11 by savagetiger
2015-01-13 at 04:32
< report >Spoons and Seventh Posture both seem to be sex where the participants lie on their sides, so maybe just add another broad category for that?
#12 by barfboy
2015-01-13 at 05:17
< report >Are the sex positions under Group Sex going to remain?

Group Sex
#13 by warfoki
2015-01-13 at 08:51
< report >@Kelpie
1) That's wrong on several accounts. First of all, it's quite rare that one person comes around and adds characters with all of their applicable traits. What actually happens is that someone adds the character with little to no traits applied and then others come around and gradually fill the blanks. Also, everyone contributing to characters should get a notification for every character that has been modified. (That is, unless Yorhel's script circumvents that system function.) But then again, the entire idea sinks with the fact that meta traits are unsearchable anyway.

2) *sigh* You really ave no idea of the nature of the problem. and you either think that dealing with the database is a full time job for me (protip: it isn't) or SERIOUSLY underestimate the time such a heavily on-hand approach would take. I'll write a longer, more detailed answer later on this subject, I don't have the time right now.

As for your second point here: added "Sideways" for Spoons and Seventh Posture

3) Well, then thanks I suppose. Though frankly, if I wouldn't have postponed this for 1.5 year I probably wouldn't be this deep in it, so it's kind of my fault as well. :/

@Savagetiger:
Done.

@Barfboy:
Well, Tribadism on Penis seems to be very self explanatory to me, so might as well keep it. Spit-roast can be covered by adding child traits to Multiple Penetration. Reverse Spitroast is a combination of Cowgirl and Facesitting so I don't really see the point of keeping it.
#14 by silence
2015-01-13 at 13:57
< report >
VNDB isn't the Kamasutra, nor should it be.
Objection, Your Honor! It should! I think, at least 70% of VNDB users are here because of SEX. So, simplifying things sounds like heresy. In opposition to the idea to throw away all the details, I would suggest to create the parent traits for all sexual positions. Sitting, Standing, Lying, etc. Sub-parents might be: Lying on the Back, Lying on the Side, Standing on the Head, etc. It should help users to wast less time searching for appropriate trait. Also, we should correct the descriptions to make them more accurate, and add the pictures for ABSOLUTELY ALL positions (instead of providing the blind wiki links, filled with tones of text).
Actually, I would like to propose posting the pics under the trait names, so you wouldn't even need to click and read the description, but since I assume that it's technically impossible or "lazyble', I'd better shut up :D
#15 by rusanon
2015-01-13 at 18:47
< report >
Reverse Spitroast is a combination of Cowgirl and Facesitting so I don't really see the point of keeping it.
Point is that it happens simultaneously, which two separate traits cannot convey.

Deleting "rare" traits and leaving only generic is quite weird decision, as only rare traits have any utility value. I cannot imagine someone searching for heroine doing fellatio — it happens in almost every eroge for every heroine, so its pointless. But aforementioned "reverse spitroast" is relatively rare and has at same time some fetish value, so I see how it could be useful.
#16 by kelpie
2015-01-14 at 04:00
< report >@warfoki

1) It's a moot point, I guess, but I based my observation on the relative rarity of edits to characters I've added--fewer than half have been edited by anyone else, and I assumed that this would be true of characters generally. That said...

2) Of course I don't expect *you* to go through and do everything. It was precisely the "others come around and gradually fill the blanks" that you mention that I was relying on. Since I was thinking this kind of editing was not so common, I didn't expect it to happen quickly, of course, but I'm not in a hurry for perfection.

Well, I didn't come here to fight, and it's clear my opinions aren't appreciated, so I'll leave you to it. I am grateful for the work you're doing, even if I disagree with your decisions, so I'd rather part peaceably.
#17 by anonymous
2015-01-14 at 05:44
< report >@15 - rare traits are only useful if people know they exist and apply them correctly, which is the point of doing the overhaul.

But in the case of spitroast/reverse spitroast, I agree that's worth keeping. Seems more like an activity than a position, anyway, so they could always just stay listed under Group Sex (which they are anyway) and be removed from Sex Positions.Last modified on 2015-01-14 at 05:45
#18 by weilai
2015-01-14 at 08:18
< report >did u add limit to trait? i not remove but it remove...

link
#19 by warfoki
2015-01-14 at 23:33
< report >Really? I've just announced that I plan to reset half of Sexual in 1) and everybody is touchy about 2) instead? Gabe told me that this will be the touchy point, but I just laughed it off. He was right. Again. It's kind of annoying. -.-"

Alright, let me elaborate on this one. So the list of problems:

1) There's no ultimate or "canonised" sex position guide. There are LOTS of sites listing different sex positions though. All of them with names that for the most part are the creations of the site admin's mind. Which means that the same position often has a whole range of names. Also, we have all kind of illustrations from 3D animatons and porn pictures to simple drawings. Sometimes it's hard to see the difference between the minor variations because of the different illustration styles. And then there's the problem of having multiple sex position variants under the same name. For example according to the Wikipedia article, the receiving partner laying on his/her stomach with the penetrating one laying on him/her, facing the same direction is a variant on spooning, while if you look at SexInfo101.com (where a lot of the illustrations and descriptions are coming from) it can only be called Spoons Position, if both partners are laying on their side. But for example we are using a different source for Quickie Fix Position, because according to SexInfo101, that's just a variant on Doggy. And I could go on and on and on and on...

2) There are hundreds of these positions, if not over a thousand out there. Currently we have about 1400 applicable traits (not counting pending, denied and meta-traits). Making separate traits for every sex position would effectively double the number of traits. Who the hell would even manage that? (I sure as hell won't.) Or find what they want among hundreds of cryptic names like Under the Cuckoo's Nest, X Marks the Spot and The Glowing Juniper? You could say "well, yeah, but you don't have to create trait for every single one of them". Okay, but how to choose which one is worthy, which one is not? Where do I draw the line and on what basis once I've opened the floodgates? Also, how different two sex positions have to be to have separate traits for them?

3) Also keep in mind, that the CGs are not always clear on the sex position and the text won't necessarily go into vivid details about the logistics of the intercourse either. What position is this for example? Is it Quickie Fix Position? Or Doggy Style? Or maybe it's the Jockey Position? Or something entirely different? Or what about this one? Is is Deck Chair? Or Missionary? Or maybe something else? And images like these aren't exactly scarce you know. With only a dozen and a half sex positions this is already a bloody mess. If I open the floodgates on dozens upon dozens of more, it's going to be an utter chaos.

4) Then we have the issue that the majority of people just don't care. I mean just look at how many times was Doggy Style used and compare it to, say, Screw. The thing is, based on the current usage, aside of some enthusiast, most people only really care to tag the positions they actually know themselves without looking it up. Which means that even if I just reset the section, because of this phenomenon mistagging WILL happen. People will keep using the most well known positions, even if we have more accurate ones. To keep things in check, I would have manually check every use of each and every sex position trait. That, or I give it a year at best and we'll be back to the "unmanageable clusterfuck" state again.

5) If I let in new traits constantly, that'll mean the old traits will be more and more misapplied. Again, just look at the current state of Doggy Style and Quickie Fix Position. Before Quickie Fix Position had come around, a lot of people used Doggy Style to tag that position, thinking that it's close enough. And this would get worse and worse with every new trait accepted. To fix that without periodically wiping the entire section out in an overhaul like this (which would be a very self-defeating policy) I would have to go through all of the characters that were tagged with sex positions similar to the newly accepted ones to check whether those trait applications are still correct or not. And I'm simply not willing to do that, since that'd be time consuming enough to call it a full time job. Just, you know, without a salary.

And I could go on and on about the potential problems. So my answer is still no. I'm not opening the floodgates on sex position traits, and that is final, unless Yorhel directly orders me to do so. And if he actually does, then he can start to look for my replacement, because I absolutely refuse to deal with such an unmanageable clusterfuck.

With that being said, I can tweak the system somewhat to accommodate for a wider range of positions. Instead of trying to come up with a system to tag all of the people in a sexual intercourse, how about tagging the positions on an individual basis.

In such a system we would have the following traits (note that this a work in progress so to speak, changes are possible in it):

1) Lying on back
2) Lying on stomach
3) Lying on side
4) Bending over
4)a ( child trait of 4)) On all four
5) Standing
6) Sitting
7) Kneeling

To show you an example: a couple engages in Deck Chair. The penetrating parter is tagged with Kneeling while the receiving one is tagged with Lying on back.

We might add a few more of these if I forgot anything, but the point is, aside of some extreme outliers, almost every sex position can be accounted for this way, while at the same time we get rid of the ridiculous naming schemes and the necessity to have a gazillion of cryptic traits for this purpose. So basically the main sources of problems.

The obvious problem with this system is that it obviously cannot be used to fix the same problems among the sex position tags, but we'll cross that bridge when we'll get there.

@Kelpie:
I don't intend to drive anyone off. I'm not angry at you, nor I want to fight you, sorry if I came across as such. I just happen to have a strong opinion on this topic and in general, I'm not much for politeness. I don't have the vitriolic sarcasm of Gabe (or at least not as much as he does), but I'm pretty damn direct about whatever I want to say. And before someone would think "internet tough guy": nope. I was already a grown up by the time I had a regular internet access, so my online and offline attitude is pretty much the same.

@Weilai: If there's such a limit, that's Yorhel's territory. I can change individual tags and traits but that's it. Only Yorhel has clearance to implement such system level changes. I'll ask in the general bug report topic.
Edit: As it turns out there is a 100 traits per character cap at the moment. Hopefully Yorhel will do something about it.
Edit 2: It should be fixed now.Last modified on 2015-01-15 at 18:15
#20 by tubehunter
2015-01-15 at 04:59
< report >I don't think it's necessary to add active-sexual trait and passive-sexual trait, because the name itself has already explained all. "Cowgirl" and "reverse cowgirl" mean that the woman is on top. "Missionary" means the guy is on top. And so on.
If someone is foolish enough to keep giving wrong tags, you can always ban him from editing.
#21 by savagetiger
2015-01-15 at 05:24
< report >@20 but than there's other stuff like fingering, and a few other things that could be vague. And then BL makes the man/woman thing not obvious.
#22 by gabezhul
2015-01-15 at 05:32
< report >@20: What if it's a lesbian scene with a strapon? How would you know which one is on the top or the bottom? Or gay male sex, if we are at that? Hell, in case of femdom or some extremely kinky characters there is always the possibility of female-on-male strapon action as well.

So yes, if you take the most well-known and simple positions then you can make educated guesses, but they are still guesses. Go into some of the more arcane variations you are suddenly dealing with a clusterfuck (pun intended)..
#23 by silence
2015-01-15 at 14:08
< report >
The penetrating parter is tagged with Kneeling while the receiving one is tagged with Lying on back.
This won't work when a lovers have sex in more than one position. For example, character "A" has traits "Lying on side" and "Kneeling", while character "B" has traits "Lying on side" and "Sitting". So they had sex at least twice. But we have 4 possible variants:

Lying on side + Lying on side
Lying on side + Sitting
Kneeling + Lying on side
Kneeling + Sitting

Which two of them are true? What to do, when each character has not two, but dozen of positions? Should we guess?
Moreover, if I can find someone with Missionary position right now, how would you suggest me to search for it in your system of traits? "Lying on back"? How would you know, that this is not sixty-nine, for example?

In the end, I would agree to compromise. We may limit the number of positions, for example, by merging Deck Chair and Missionary (I couldn't even differ them at first sight), Doggy Style and Quickie Fix (because the principle is the same), etc. But I can't agree with Spoons removal, I would argue about Doggy Style VS Screw, etc. In other worlds, I suggest to discuss each position individually, and I suggest to do so for each newly added sex-position-related trait, before it will be approved or banned.Last modified on 2015-01-15 at 14:27
#24 by warfoki
2015-01-15 at 18:44
< report >@Tubehunter: what Savagetiger and Gabe said. I'll just add two more things:
1) Aside of homosexual scenes, we also have futanaris to deal with.
2) I can't ban people from editing. And frankly, if tons of people misapply traits like that, then the system is faulty to some degree as well. Hence why I try to fix it.

@Silence:
You've completely misunderstood my intention here. The entire point of the system is to completely avoid tackling sex positions in the traditional sense. So yeah, you're right, if we have more than two people or more than one sex position in a VN tagged with such traits, it's hard, if not impossible to figure out what sex positions are they gonna use. But the system was never meant to do that in the first place. what it meant to do is to show the positions the characters assume during sex INDIVIDUALLY.

Also, since you've mentioned Sixty-nine: that trait is going to be saved, since it's not a problematic one. I'll reset, but keep Spit-roast because it's not really a sex position. There's a crapton of ways to "perform oral sex on one partner while they engage in receptive anal or vaginal intercourse with the other partner". Same goes for Reverse Spitroast, although there I'll modify it some: I'll make it gender neutral and remove the part about the two "riding" partners having to face each other. I still don't really like the name, but for the lack of a better one, I'll leave it.
#25 by silence
2015-01-16 at 07:50
< report >
what it meant to do is to show the positions the characters assume during sex INDIVIDUALLY
I'm afraid to even imagine it. Sex is not a single-player game, you know. I'm not interested in the single character lying on back. I'm interested in sexual position of both giver and receiver. If you can't link them and make them searchable, then it's useless.