Naming policy Consistency

[Ezel]

So i was playing a round in Terry when i heard somoene freaking about that Mono names are not allowed since naming policy etc etc(we love it)
Which i brought up the people what about the other people that have "mono" they are fine because they had it for months? that would be unfair for the people who didnt have it for months i think there should be some between the line or atleast some better solution that isn't some people get the greenpass and other doesn't just some kind of solution thats fair for both sides and not dependant per admin

[dendydoom]

to have a name that subverts the norm you have to put in effort and come up with an IC reason.

if you're asked for your IC reason and you say "no thanks i can't be bothered" then you've failed the extremely easy skill check, sorry.

there is no quantifiable metric to objectively judge names. the best we can do is come up with some sort of effort-barrier to ensure that low effort shitpost names get filtered while people who are sincerely trying to engage with the creative space are allowed to contribute.

there are also other factors outside of this. you can't have ooc references for example. you have to put in the effort (see the trend here?) to detach it enough from the source material that it becomes its own thing.

if you want a stupid example because i can't be bothered to look for one, the annoying orange painting was removed but the irritating citrus was allowed. perhaps this is pedantic. well, it has to be. because like i said, there is no metric that makes this an easily objective decision. it must be measured against something external.

it will never be consistent. it's like sprite changes in the codebase. based on vibes.

[TheRex9001]

Currently it is based on this little ol line in naming policy: "Species have naming conventions that are part of their in-universe culture. These may be subverted if they have a sufficient amount of in-character reasoning and effort explaining their non-standard name. Non-standard names are held to higher scrutiny and you may be questioned on why your name breaks these conventions.", the reason why some people can have it whilst others can't is mostly down to this, do you have a good reason behind that name? Do you have effort behind it? It will always to some extent be dependent on the admin, like naming policy pretty much always has been.

[Atlanta-Ned]

All Rule 3 name precedents should be revoked and offending names should be asked to change as admins come across them, if they are unwilling to do so voluntarily. We should never see another mononym/nickname/title/honorific again. If we need someone to play the bad guy and tell people to change their names, I'll do it.

[dendydoom]

remember when i said that admins allowing low effort mononyms would get the policy revoked and inevitably punish the good faith players who were putting in the effort?

it gets so tiring being right all the time bros

[Vekter]

Yeah no, I think naming policy is fine now. Two reasons:

1) I feel like we should be rewarding players who come up with reasons for having unique names. I agree with the idea that someone who just names themselves "Butts" and says "lol idk I just think it's funny" should be forced to change their name, but if someone like Lamp has bothered to come up with a backstory reason why they have a mononym, I'm perfectly fine with that.

2) I'm going to be completely frank with everyone here: People regularly have weird fucking names IRL and it shouldn't be that immersion breaking to run into someone with a weird name in-game. It is such a non-issue to me. If you are mad that people have fun, unique names, then I do not have any recourse to offer you. If you're mad that I asked you to change your name because you couldn't come up with a good RP reason for your character to be named that, then skill issue.

IMO the only times when we should really be stepping in to have names changed is if they are EXCESSIVELY out-of-character (pop culture, public figures, "Death Dealer 9000" kind of stuff) or if they're explicitly offensive ("Tyrone Biggums", "A. Dolph Shitler" etc).

All Rule 3 name precedents should be revoked and offending names should be asked to change as admins come across them, if they are unwilling to do so voluntarily. We should never see another mononym/nickname/title/honorific again. If we need someone to play the bad guy and tell people to change their names, I'll do it.

I normally agree with you on most matters, so I suppose my challenge to you would be this: Explain to me how things like this do tangible harm to the experience for others.

[Atlanta-Ned]

All Rule 3 name precedents should be revoked and offending names should be asked to change as admins come across them, if they are unwilling to do so voluntarily. We should never see another mononym/nickname/title/honorific again. If we need someone to play the bad guy and tell people to change their names, I'll do it.

I normally agree with you on most matters, so I suppose my challenge to you would be this: Explain to me how things like this do tangible harm to the experience for others.

They're stupid and I hate seeing them in ahelps shared to adminbus.

But for real, names like this foster an attitude that everyone is the most specialest, unique snowflake on the station; that they are the protagonist with the ability to decide not only their fate but the fate of the entire round. That they're so cool, so notorious, that the rules the rest of us follow in good-faith don't apply to them. They are the ultimate spaceman, etc etc. It promotes lone-wolf heroics in a game where you're essentially set dressing for whatever the antagonist of the round is.

[Vekter]

They're stupid and I hate seeing them in ahelps shared to adminbus.

But for real, names like this foster an attitude that everyone is the most specialest, unique snowflake on the station; that they are the protagonist with the ability to decide not only their fate but the fate of the entire round. That they're so cool, so notorious, that the rules the rest of us follow in good-faith don't apply to them. They are the ultimate spaceman, etc etc. It promotes lone-wolf heroics in a game where you're essentially set dressing for whatever the antagonist of the round is.

I respect you and your opinion, but I think that's a drastic generalization that threatens most individuality in the game.

[Atlanta-Ned]

threatens most individuality in the game.

Good. This is a collaborative roleplaying game.

[Vekter]

threatens most individuality in the game.

Good. This is a collaborative roleplaying game.

Yes, but having everyone be Normal Spongebob all the time is boring and removes a lot of what makes the game unique to me. It's those differences that give rounds spice. I agree that "main character syndrome" can be a problem, but an equally bad problem is everyone being NPCs. It's okay for a few people to be the focus of some rounds, just not every round.

[conrad]

Why is it so hard for people to conform to a standard that isn't that hard to conform to?

Like you're not more special than the rest of the server. We shouldn't need to have several joe schmoes so one person is called Tau Techno Mechanicus Musk, and having everyone be named after one of Grimes' kids would be fine...if this was a Star Wars server.

I respect you and your opinion, but I think that's a drastic generalization that threatens most individuality in the game.

Individuality doesn't need a zany name. Reed Glover is a perfectly common name and pretty much everyone who played the game a few years back knows who that is.

I'm not usually in favour of authoritarian, punitive measures but I agree with Atlanta-Ned, probably because I had one of the most outlandish encounters with naming policy and the entire thing is complete bollocks to argue over.

[Atlanta-Ned]

threatens most individuality in the game.

Good. This is a collaborative roleplaying game.

Yes, but having everyone be Normal Spongebob all the time is boring and removes a lot of what makes the game unique to me. It's those differences that give rounds spice. I agree that "main character syndrome" can be a problem, but an equally bad problem is everyone being NPCs. It's okay for a few people to be the focus of some rounds, just not every round.

I should temper my arguments; I don't want to completely remove individuality, but we desperately need to cut down on issues stemming from main character syndrome. Name policy exceptions is a great place to start.

[Vekter]

I should temper my arguments; I don't want to completely remove individuality, but we desperately need to cut down on issues stemming from main character syndrome. Name policy exceptions is a great place to start.

I don't disagree, but we should be careful that we're not actively stifling creativity where it would be valuable.

I respect you and your opinion, but I think that's a drastic generalization that threatens most individuality in the game.

Individuality doesn't need a zany name. Reed Glover is a perfectly common name and pretty much everyone who played the game a few years back knows who that is.

I think that we're generally in agreement on the concern here - we're worried about players who tend to act like the main character of the round and try to solve every problem, but is this going to actually help prevent that? Does this do what you and Ned say it does?

[ItzRiumz]

Even though I'm not the biggest fan of mononym names if the person using them can come up with an IC backstory for that name then they should be able to keep it. Having people try and create backstories for characters is good for roleplay and should be encouraged. If we have to deal with some silly mononym names to have people put more thought into their characters then I'm completely in support of it.

I should temper my arguments; I don't want to completely remove individuality, but we desperately need to cut down on issues stemming from main character syndrome. Name policy exceptions is a great place to start.

The worry about main character syndrome due to special names is silly. Even if they didn't have their special name that person is probably going to act like a main character anyway. I don't see how not allowing special names is going to change that at all.

[conrad]

I think that we're generally in agreement on the concern here - we're worried about players who tend to act like the main character of the round and try to solve every problem, but is this going to actually help prevent that? Does this do what you and Ned say it does?

That's what I meant with many joe schmoes for one zany name. When one person gets preferential treatment because one admin thought it was good RP to have a zany name, it becomes preferential treatment in spite of what other admins may think. At best it's a jab at the rest of the pop who are conformists, and worst a landmine waiting to detonate when another admin finds the name bad.

It stops being a good thing because for one group of people it becomes an obligation and for another it becomes a privilege.

This sort of thing sparks a bunch of arguments and literally nothing is lost to just have a normal name.

I'm not hugely emotionally attached to how the names are chosen, my stance comes from the negative byproduct of it, 'cos whichever side the sword swings it has to be treated as innocuous. It's either we don't care or we stop caring, if that makes sense.

[Vekter]

I think that we're generally in agreement on the concern here - we're worried about players who tend to act like the main character of the round and try to solve every problem, but is this going to actually help prevent that? Does this do what you and Ned say it does?

That's what I meant with many joe schmoes for one zany name. When one person gets preferential treatment because one admin thought it was good RP to have a zany name, it becomes preferential treatment in spite of what other admins may think. At best it's a jab at the rest of the pop who are conformists, and worst a landmine waiting to detonate when another admin finds the name bad.

Again, I want to be respectful here, but this feels more like you putting your own beliefs and opinions into things as opposed to objective fact. I feel like you're making a pretty broad extrapolation to go from "We let someone have a mononym because they had an interesting RP reason for it" to "It's a direct insult to people who conform with the rules and screams of preferential treatment".

The only "preferential treatment" is to people who bother to interact with the game as a role-playing game.

[dendydoom]

this thread was made because a green lizard was told they can't be named "creeper". they were asked for their ic reasoning and they said their mother called them the name and they're not going to put more effort into it because it's terry.

the amount of contempt in this thread for players who just want to play a video game set in a saturday morning cartoon universe borders on the absurd. you need to put in the effort to have a name that breaks naming conventions for that species. we didn't even know what those standard conventions were before i wrote the policy. that's not preferential treatment that's just pointing out where the bar is and telling you how high you need to jump to clear it. before you just jumped and someone arbitrarily decided if you pass or can go get fucked.

if you don't care about writing backstories and all that cringe rp bullshit then just make a name that fits the conventions and go on with your day. if you enjoy the part of the game where you theorycraft about your beloved blorbo OC then why tell people they're bad for wanting that?

no wonder we haemorrhage players when trying to engage earnestly gets you called a snowflake who wants to control the round. like wtf? did the batteries in the carbon monoxide alarm die or something?

[warbluke]

Letting people choose their species is also rather snowflakey too. And hairstyle now that I think about it, and skin colour too.
We need to go back to the old days where everyone looked completely identical so that traitors can really enjoy carving through legions of clones.

[conrad]

Again, I want to be respectful here, but this feels more like you putting your own beliefs and opinions into things as opposed to objective fact. I feel like you're making a pretty broad extrapolation to go from "We let someone have a mononym because they had an interesting RP reason for it" to "It's a direct insult to people who conform with the rules and screams of preferential treatment".

The only "preferential treatment" is to people who bother to interact with the game as a role-playing game.

If I was disrespectful, I apologize. It wasn't my intention.

The entire conversation is subjective. There is no objective definition of what good, or even "sufficient" RP is. If we're going to have restrictive rules, they need to be based on something that is universally agreed upon in some fashion, or we're having naming policy arguments every two months.

if you don't care about writing backstories and all that cringe rp bullshit then just make a name that fits the conventions and go on with your day. if you enjoy the part of the game where you theorycraft about your beloved blorbo OC then why tell people they're bad for wanting that?

Because Mr Admeme's reasoning for approving or disapproving on my IC reasoning is completely arbitrary and one admeme can disagree with another and cock the whole fucking concept.

If we're going for w/e names have fun, let that be the norm, not the exception. And then equaly clamp down on admins that have nothing better to do than to police names.

Or set that names can be whatever and what we currently have are recommendations in a way that leaves no room for repetitive doubt-fueled arguments.

We hemmorage players because other servers are doing a better job, not about naming convention, but, in my opinion, cohesion.

Letting people choose their species is also rather snowflakey too. And hairstyle now that I think about it, and skin colour too.
We need to go back to the old days where everyone looked completely identical so that traitors can really enjoy carving through legions of clones.

A reminder that arguing in bad faith is against forum rules.

[warbluke]

A reminder that arguing in bad faith is against forum rules.

In my earnest opinion I don't really see enough examples of strange names to even justify there being a policy on sybil at least. Although half the time I have a hard time telling if a name is silly or a real one. Is there any data out there on how many name-related tickets are made?

[dendydoom]

names are always going to need to be quality controlled at some level based on someone's personal judgement. that's just how it is. as i said earlier, there is no measurable metric for name quality. it is just "what fits" at some point. the fairest compromise that respects the efforts of players is to measure it by some external metric that incentivizes good faith participation.

you want to see what it looks like when that's not the case? feel free to go back to my own appeal threads in my forum profile.

proving that you thought about the ic context of your character's name *to participate in a roleplaying game* is the point and is the norm, not the exception, whether you follow the conventions or not. you can't be a lizard named creeper when it's an obvious ooc reference to a minecraft mob. you can make it work when you show that you're not just shitposting and you actually put effort in because your contribution enriches the creative space.

mr "cre eper" fits the conventions. allowed or not allowed? gay johnson is a beloved static. tomorrow i might join with "homo smithers". allowed or not allowed? you're right, throw open the gates and let no one be judged by the mean fun hating admin. come on in, adolf shitler. welcome to the table, pull up a character sheet. as long as you're not one of those snowflakes who try to put in effort and engage with our game sincerely. that would be cringe.

i'm listening for any other server that is as lax as us around these kinds of rules. that spends as much time entertaining this level of villainizing of players from people whose time since their last round can be measured in years but still finds the time to fight against the imaginary villains in their head and make it everyone else's problem.

[RaveRadbury]

The core issue with naming policy is that people with privilege and/or investment are attached to non-compliant names and have made clear it's a hill they will die on. Others feel bad for people who have had non-compliant names for a long time, they feel like they are taking something away for little-to-no-benefit.

And so the tragedy of the commons continues.

[Vekter]

Again, I want to be respectful here, but this feels more like you putting your own beliefs and opinions into things as opposed to objective fact. I feel like you're making a pretty broad extrapolation to go from "We let someone have a mononym because they had an interesting RP reason for it" to "It's a direct insult to people who conform with the rules and screams of preferential treatment".

The only "preferential treatment" is to people who bother to interact with the game as a role-playing game.

If I was disrespectful, I apologize. It wasn't my intention.

No, that was more me saying I wasn't attempting to insult you and was just being earnest/maybe a little blunt about how I felt about the matter. I didn't want to be misconstrued as insulting you.

[conrad]

No, that was more me saying I wasn't attempting to insult you and was just being earnest/maybe a little blunt about how I felt about the matter. I didn't want to be misconstrued as insulting you.

Oh Vekman I got nothing but respect for you bud, you'd have to go through great lenghts for me to not approve of your takes based on tone o>

[Jamarkus]

But for real, names like this foster an attitude that everyone is the most specialest, unique snowflake on the station; that they are the protagonist with the ability to decide not only their fate but the fate of the entire round. That they're so cool, so notorious, that the rules the rest of us follow in good-faith don't apply to them. They are the ultimate spaceman, etc etc. It promotes lone-wolf heroics in a game where you're essentially set dressing for whatever the antagonist of the round is.

idk if a name would cause main character syndrome. I use some more unconventional names as interaction points with others personally. I never stray far from what makes sense IC with conventional names, but Ill make tweaks that will cause more preceptive players to ask why. I let this move into engagement with a character on an aspect of them I made to RP about. I dont know why you think that this would cause someone to think they are the main character at all UNLESS its their entire schtick.

EXAMPLE:

Trillium is an ethereal name that still sounds like a star, but doesn't have the roman numerals. when asked why, he has a cheesy ass cringe line that he "can do a trillium things at once." He got beat up for this line, which fits him being a pussy. He cant change it though because its too much paperwork. If people push, its because he really HAS read every manual that NT ONLY has produced. on PAPER hes skilled in everything, but when asked to do it, he cant because he hasnt actually DID these things.

The names a great start for an opening for people interested in your backstory that you built up. the only issue I see is when said name becomes your driving force into your actions, if your name is Litmin "brawler" Kemes, and you go out wanting to fight everyone in the ring, that's you looking for the limelight, and using your name as a means to do it. if you throw subtly out the window, you get your introduction to main character syndrome. if thats what you mean, I get it. Having a name thats different NEEDS to have a decent explanation that if someone asked, they can begin a small interaction to explain why that sends the other player going "huh, thats neat!" or "that makes some sort of sense now." it shouldn't be your ONLY character arc.

[Ezel]

this thread was made because a green lizard was told they can't be named "creeper". they were asked for their ic reasoning and they said their mother called them the name and they're not going to put more effort into it because it's terry.

Was it? i thought it was the human player that was only called Man

[Fatal]

Mononyms suck, but some players have had them for so long that they're more or less grandfathered in to be allowed, if I had my way, we'd just remove them all, but I'm not a headmin and I don't care enough to argue for it

But players picking shitty ones and then not having a reasonable back story, yeah just change it

Naming policy is a mess, it's always going to be a mess

But just to be clear, the player in question "Creeper", was not the only player asked to change their name yesterday, there were at two others that I spoke to, of the three, two were offered the opportunity to provide a backstory for it (but "Man" was not presented that opportunity because it's not even a name), both players declined providing that, so they failed the skill check in keeping their name, in line with our naming policy

[WineAllWine]

The core issue with naming policy is that people with privilege and/or investment are attached to non-compliant names and have made clear it's a hill they will die on. Others feel bad for people who have had non-compliant names for a long time, they feel like they are taking something away for little-to-no-benefit.

And so the tragedy of the commons continues.

I am in the latter group, if you've had a name for a long enough time you get attached to it and taking it away borderlines on the cruel.

Fun story, Bmon tried to do this with a Terry player, I advised against it in asay. The player had had this name for more than 2000 rounds. They gave a brief argument then basically replied with "sure, I'll change it next round". They still use that name to this day.

[RaveRadbury]

The core issue with naming policy is that people with privilege and/or investment are attached to non-compliant names and have made clear it's a hill they will die on. Others feel bad for people who have had non-compliant names for a long time, they feel like they are taking something away for little-to-no-benefit.

And so the tragedy of the commons continues.

I am in the latter group, if you've had a name for a long enough time you get attached to it and taking it away borderlines on the cruel.

Fun story, Bmon tried to do this with a Terry player, I advised against it in asay. The player had had this name for more than 2000 rounds. They gave a brief argument then basically replied with "sure, I'll change it next round". They still use that name to this day.

And that's the other part: some people are willing to change and align with the group and others aren't. And it's not directly related to how many rounds they've had the name. People are just built different.

Enforcing naming policy basically comes down to: Are you willing to deal with the appeal and getting dragged by the community over it? On top of the boundaries being subjective there are also people who disagree with the root principle of "we should have a sense of naming cohesion". The times I've ever tried to enforce naming policy I've been warned that it sucks and I was prepared for it to suck when I made the ruling. I have had naming appeals overturned. I've had them upheld. Most people don't think it's worth the time or trouble.

[NecromancerAnne]

We should ignore Ned's weirdly spiteful and anti-roleplay hot take and maintain current policy. Because poor names are not nearly as frequent a problem as many people make them out to be (or to justify the frequency that name policy threads show up), and it is an overblown issue whose crackdown harms a part of our playerbase trying to make an earnest attempt at character creation.

I'll repeat again and say that my real life name wouldn't be legal under older naming policy and I think that's fucking stupid as shit.

The bad actors get filtered pretty easily. A moth named Milk is just a joke to rile up admins.

[Ezel]

Uwumi got recently told off for using a single name, she been using that name for 2 years where is the line drawn between A player who doesn't have enough IC reason vs a player who have been "Grandfathered" into it being ok

[kinnebian]

If we were going to do anything to naming policy, I'd actually prefer it to be making it looser. The naming policy on plasmamen and ethereals is way too restrictive as it is, with more zany galaxies getting shot down for ethereals and plasmamen only having so many elements to choose from. Id rather it be chemicals, even.

[Metek]

.

[Metek]

I understand the intent of naming policy to be in the interest of keeping certain lore and theme characteristics consistent. The arguing that there needs to be a policy crackdown toward the end of nipping "main character syndrome" in the bud seems to be a total left field take that smacks of a personal crusade rather than facilitating the sensible enforcement of the policy. What's more, some people flourish when in the spotlight, and make the game (and community) better for everyone involved when presented the opportunity, just the same as some of our tetchy, anti-social maintainers make the game better for their taciturn pull requests.

[kinnebian]

But for real, names like this foster an attitude that everyone is the most specialest, unique snowflake on the station; that they are the protagonist with the ability to decide not only their fate but the fate of the entire round. That they're so cool, so notorious, that the rules the rest of us follow in good-faith don't apply to them. They are the ultimate spaceman, etc etc. It promotes lone-wolf heroics in a game where you're essentially set dressing for whatever the antagonist of the round is.

Sorry, but whats with this post? It reads as weirdly aggressive and mean. I would argue quite a lot of the fun made in roleplaying is making your cool unique characters, then letting them interact with other cool unique characters. This is the kind of attitude that bullied mrp players into making their own discord.

If someone wants to make their cool unique character and has a differnet name that might not follow naming conventions, we have the rules there to allow it because its fun and encourages roleplay.

[NecromancerAnne]

Uwumi got recently told off for using a single name, she been using that name for 2 years where is the line drawn between A player who doesn't have enough IC reason vs a player who have been "Grandfathered" into it being ok

They should appeal it if it was ever put into their notes.

Link this them this thread.

[AsbestosSniffer]

Fun fact: Several cultures in Asia STILL use mononyms, this is because not all cultures are the same.

[Timberpoes]

I polled the elects and 2 responded with quick comments with some negative vibes for some aspects of naming policy as it currently is. The third was Rex who has posted a take in this thread.

So this will be delegated to them to decide if they want to do anything with it or if it's too much of a bee's nest to hit with a stick.

[iain0]

We will not be making any changes to naming policy at this time. There is a section in the rules marked "Species Naming Conventions" under rule 3 precedents that sums up the current position effectively.