litphoria

It's compounded when the trait categories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive in the first place. Did a person decide to choose magical and shapeshifter because shapeshifters are magic? Can they do both? Just magic and some magic spell lets them change shape? Or do they play either a shapeshifter or a magician? Do choosing illegal and transportation mean that you're looking at a smuggler or someone that drives a truck and just happens to sell drugs? How about a professional virgin, what are they?

You seem to think I've suggested everything should get multiselect. I didn't suggest that! I suggested eleven specific traits get it: "Every trait with a ★ has multiselect, which is most I list, except for the Gender traits." Take a second look.

What would it mean to choose furry robot primate angel bird dolphin elemental? It's no more meaningful than choosing the hybrid options, because those come with no way to tell what they are besides "appearance descriptors." OK, great. But does that mean this tech-elemental looks something like a dolphin-bird with a prehensile tail and wings? Or does it mean that person plays a character that can be any single one of those things? Or does it mean that they play either an angelic bird robot or a dolphin-chimp elemental?

Yes, of course people can make absurd-looking combinations. I'll just quote what I said already about that:

Someone could make a total nonsense profile by selecting everything. Let them.

Some combinations could be hard to interpret. That's fine, we'll still have context to provide clarity. We can already make hard to interpret profiles when contexts aren't used (try making a golem). Many options will need clarification, but that's the case now (most body modifications).

I can't really respond to the rest of what you're writing as you're making generalisations I can't meaningfully respond to. "Crushing a bunch of options together doesn't really help the system to be more expressive. Adding more options does." - adding new traits & categories doesn't help right now, or rather it leads to a large number of traits people resent having to fill out. I don't even want new traits for clitoris size, vaginal depth and other stuff, I don't want new traits for nipples. A lot of those potential traits are dumb as full traits, likely unwanted by many people (like nipple appearance is), and are only a binary on/off anyway (like prehensile penis vs not, inverted nipples vs not). Those details are going to function better as options for existing traits that have multiselect.

Loki, you're missing one fundamental point. Traits are NOT to see what the character is exactly. That would be a terrible system. It's exactly that - you can KIND OF tell what the character is at a glance, but to get the details and clarifications you should read the description. I mean, what do you expect? Yeah, you have to read to get a good idea about a character.

Now, this.

One really big reason I like having to choose one category per trait is that I don't have to specify "without this, that, and the other thing," just to narrow down searches.

Look, the point I'm making here is that narrowing the search parameters is easy. It can be done just by specifying additional constraints. And there is nothing bad about that, that's literally why we have constraints in a search. However, EXPANDING a search is impossible. So if I want to see all that is magical. Yes, including a shapeshifter, including something ambiguous, anything. Right now I can't, because people have to choose. I want to see anything canine. But hybrids won't be under that category. Why? I want to see canine hybrids too! It totally makes sense to do that. And it's impossible to do currently. Meanwhile you lose nothing by allowing multiple options. It just allows people to specify EVERYTHING (or, well, more) about their character to the search system. Which is exactly what we need to make the search system robust like it's supposed to be.

Honestly, I agree that there probably is a better solution, but I hate hate hate single trait restriction.

One thing I don't like is, that I cannot simply choose "woman" as gender but have to set 4 traits on "female" to express something simple. Here a gender-trait with multi options could be helpful. It could contain "woman" or "man" as an option (or male/female) and for more complicated genders other options I can combine like "transgender" or "feminine". The outcome could be something like: "Masculine transgender woman". Masculine/androgyne/feminine as the gender-appearance and transgender as the mental gender. Penis/vagina and breasts could be removed from the gender and be expressed by "breast size" and "penis size".

For Species/Body a problem could be that we get an immense unstructured list. Very specific traits combined with very general traits. Some species/body types have similar meanings, demihuman/anthro/Kemonomimi.

I still have to read four traits then to know that the character is a woman, what I also don't like.

We'd just need some way for the search to smartly figure out that someone with certain traits filled out a certain way is male, or female, or herm, or whatever, and let us use those terms instead of specifying every category.

The gender "man" already includes that the character has a penis. Only for other genders, to avoid names like "shemale", a combined gender would be needed.

Yes, it does. These are transgender-men, or transguys like the website says. Does the website tell them they are not guys, because it calls them transguys and not guys? The trait could be named "standard man" though if it helps. 'A character with the typical sexual organs and mental orientation for a male of his species and gender'. ;)

This is the suggestion about: Merge particular traits & give them multiselect, not the one about tags, if there is a misunderstanding. I suggest to use a single gender trait with multi-selection.

Let's keep this on topic; this isn't the place for discussing profile inspirations. I agree it could be helpful to have a quick way to search on particular combinations of gender/genital traits but that's out of scope for this and can be done a number of ways (like, a quick autofill of those traits on the search page).

Well, my question is, why is the species (species/body-type/sup.n.) put together in one trait and the gender is not? I could multiselect my gender like my species.

I agree with Loki so far, that the problem with supernatural nature is not, that it is not multiselect, but that three traits got merged together into one. That's why I have to choose between demonic, magical and shape-shifter.

One of those is Apparent Gender, and it's for what you look like — regardless of the size of your chest or what your genitals are (which, y'know, are usually hidden from view).

The other's the Mental Gender trait we already have that covers your gender identity and preferred pronouns and so on. It's unrelated to what your body looks like, and I promise it makes no sense at all mixing it in with Apparent Gender. It's way too separate.

If you want women, and don't care if they might have a penis or not, you can find profiles with apparent gender of female. You may also more specifically want to find female profiles with penis of none. Whether there's ways to shorten that search with shortcuts for some of these, however, like whether we'd have a quick-fill or single search term by which we can rapidly search for female-identifying apparent-females with breasts and a vagina and no penis, I suggest is probably not on topic for the discussion here.

why not all tags or all traits instead of both? What's the reasoning behind letting people only choose multiple of some things, but not others?

Traits like Wealth, Body Height and Alignment model things that are in reality mutually exclusive options — you can only have one level of wealth — so modelling them that way makes sense.

The traits I've suggested here for multiselect aren't mutually exclusive options in real life, so modelling them that way doesn't make sense. That's primarily body mods and powers originally.

Chest, penis, and vagina became that way because I shoved a lot of stuff together, but it ends up working out well. First, to be properly accurate about these things would require an excessive number of traits*. Distinct from the personality & social class stuff, these are actually about the visible body and the small details are almost always worth going into. Second, when you consider people with multiple breasts/penises/vaginas might have the duplicates look different, what size your breasts or penises are starts being a question with multiple answers.

Appearance became that way because I shoved species & skin type & body type & parts of supernatural nature together into one. I'm reconsidering whether body type should actually be a part of that, but I'm not sure what its options would be after this change, since it seems hard to define or very species-specific for a lot of things (so "humanoid", "taur", and "other"?).

(* those traits are: nipple inversion (people resent having two nipple traits, let alone adding a third), prehensile penis, multiple penises, multiple vaginas, multiple breasts, and the various pussy details - clit size, mons size, etc. Part of the problem is: all of these only have one important answer, which is "yes", except for the vagina stuff, for which the only important answer is often "unusually large" - because small is the default. The rest is average, not important, wasn't very worthwhile filling out that trait, it was just overhead. If those are mixed in with others, and I just pick it if it's important, that's awesome.)

(2) chest, penis, vagina: doesn't strto be accurate about all the specific details requires an excessive number of fickle traits, many of them simply with yes/no options. (That's: nipple inversion, which would require a third nipple trait when people resent having two; penis prehensileness, and many features of the vagina like clit & labia & mons size, & uterus and womb stuff if anyone cares to go into that detail).

Also, when you consider that people with multiple breasts might have a large pair and a small pair, and similarly multiple penises/vaginas might all look different, the traits for them fall into scenario (1). It just sorta works out well here handling them together.

Second, if someone does play, eg. a male and female, human and wolf version of a character, I'd rather know that very clearly instead of being met with male-female-human-wolf-humanoid-anthro. Because that could be any number of things. And while the discussion on it was closed, that seems better served with different character tabs/alts.

The gender traits aren't multiselect. So really it's just Species: human wolf humanoid anthro we're dealing with.

Yeah, you can't cleanly indicate you'll play two versions of a character: not in the current system, not in this one either. This doesn't solve that, hopefully it just doesn't make it any worse. Maybe it'll be useful building blocks for doing that? At least now you can find wolf profiles, find that person (despite them being a human), and discover a character you would've missed who's totally happy to play a wolf.

Fuck, that one was sent with half-drafted bits I should've deleted. Ignore the last two paragraphs in the first section.

Second, if someone does play, eg. a male and female, human and wolf version of a character, I'd rather know that very clearly instead of being met with male-female-human-wolf-humanoid-anthro. Because that could be any number of things. And while the discussion on it was closed, that seems better served with different character tabs/alts.

You have the problem now though, that you cannot indicate that you are playing a hybrid. So if you play a wolfhound the species will be wolf or hound. There could be a species-trait-category that is "hub" or "alternative" which, when set, indicates, that the chosen species are alternatives, while another trait "half-blood" or "hybrid" could indicate that the char is a hybrid of two species.

I guess that right off the bat, I don't see the issue with having traits that are yes or no. Yes or no is easy. Yes or no is exceedingly hard to misunderstand.

(...) And I'm still at the point where I go "who cares that some people don't like having to fill out _____?" There are always going to be people that don't want to fill out ____ trait. They don't have to. We should stop encouraging them to, but that's another discussion.

A common complaint, even from established long-term users, is the system has too many traits to fill out, especially ones irrelevant to our characters. It's also something that we know drives away newbies. So regardless of our personal feelings, it won't work to go "screw them, let's just add ten traits for this anyway." Because, yeah, we do screw them, and they hate it, enjoy the site less, and leave for something less clunky or don't properly join in the first place.

And yeah, we should stop needing people to fill out everything, but I still don't think a whole lot of yes/no traits are a good thing to have. (I don't buy that it's often more complex than yes/no. Cock sentience is separate from prehensileness, that's a different yes/no, and distinguishing part-inversion from full-inversion in search is actually really inconvenient for people into nipple inversion - having just one yes/no is helpful.)

So to skip ahead for a moment:

This all confuses me. So...? The only reason someone wanted a nipple trait in the first place was because they had something unusual to describe. Does it matter if there are only one or two unusual or widely searched options and the rest measure different variations of "normal"?

Yeah it does matter.

Species and body type certainly are exclusive in real life. There's just no way to have a rabbit-bird, no matter how hard you try or how long you leave them in the same cage together. A creature can't be both "feral" and "human", unless something horrible happened to that poor animal.

This is just that "you can pick combinations that make no sense" thing again. Allowing selection of more than one thing makes a lot of sense, I didn't say that meant every combination makes sense.

Because this isn't real life and I've seen plenty of rabbit-birds and bee-elephants. And liking the rabbit-bird doesn't mean you have any interest in the bee-elephant.

Our system already sucks at combinations.

The answer is yes...? The multiple genitalia trait isn't yes/no now, why should it be if there were one for penis, vagina, and breasts?

I figure the only reason it's got loads of options is because well we have a trait for it, might as well fill it with those. People into multiple genitals don't often tend to give a crap about how it works out exactly, from what I've seen.

@Loki and Samus: That seems a bit nitpicky to me. Perhaps it would be more constructive to discuss, why some traits are exclusive and others are not. I'd say species is exclusive. One can either be a human or an elf. A half-elf is a mixture between elf and human. One can either have a female or male gender-appearance. Androgynous ist a mixture of male and female. I think this is the same for gender and species. I can combine wolf and humanoid without mixing them, because humanoid is not a species. If I merge two traits together, like species and body-type then multiselect makes sense. For gender it makes no sense if you don't merge them together. If you merge mental-gender and gender-appearance into one gender-trait then multiselection makes sense.

Body height might be exclusive, but why not combine it with body weight? Body-shape would than be "fat and tall" for example.

If a trait is exclusive or multi depends only on how it is designed. The problem now is, that we have both. While gender is divided into four exclusive traits, species is not. Body height is exclusive and sup.nature is not. But that is not, because there is a fundamental difference between body height and sup.nature. The first is designed as exclusive trait and the 2nd is not.

Desdemona:

For gender it makes no sense if you don't merge them together. If you merge mental-gender and gender-appearance into one gender-trait then multiselection makes sense.

(...) Body height might be exclusive, but why not combine it with body weight? Body-shape would than be "fat and tall" for example.

I would not merge body weight and body height, and I would not merge those two gender traits. Both of these pairs are distinctly separate, have a comprehensive list of mutually exclusive options, and don't benefit from being merged. There's no advantage to be gained.

I don't get why you're saying species is not exclusive when we literally have hybrid animals & chimeras.

If a trait is exclusive or multi depends only on how it is designed.

Not entirely. It also depends on what you're modeling with that trait. If we model piercings or scars, and what powers you have, it works out better not being exclusive.

... that was meant to be posted as Samus; looks like there's a bug in Feedback.

I don't get why you're saying species is not exclusive when we literally have hybrid animals & chimeras.

Ugh, I meant, that species is exclusive.

Desdemona, to give you a proper explanation of Species being non-exclusive, and needing multiselect:

The intention was this: we've got demons, and the fact demons were in Supernatural Nature not Species was so that we could have someone say "I'm a Demonic Demihuman" or "I'm a Demonic Cat". We've got robots, but they're indicated by Skin Type, so that you can have "I'm a Robotic Demihuman" or "I'm a Robotic Cat". But those are clunky as hell and the traits involved mean too many things.

So, if we put Demon and Robot in Species, and make it multiselect, people can actually say they're a Robot Demihuman (or Human, if they prefer) by picking both of those. Also, a Chimera or Hybrid can say the important things they're a Chimera/Hybrid of. A Cabbit can pick Cat & Rabbit or suggest a Cabbit species. An Angelic Cabbit can say they're that, too. So now you can find your Feline/Lion Chimeras and whatever rather than them being effectively non-searchable.

I would not merge body weight and body height, and I would not merge those two gender traits. Both of these pairs are distinctly separate,

Yes. But why not make Species distinctly separate instead of multiselect? What you say, if I get it right, is: All well-designed traits can stay like they are while all poorly designed traits we merge together and make them multi-select.

If we want to have demon-cats we can simply make two species-traits. Species A is demon and Species B is cat. You don't need multiselect to make Species-Combinations possible. Technically this is no problem with single-select. It might be, that multiselect is the better solution, I am unsure about that, but the fact that we can't have two species atm is not a technical problem of single-select traits. We have 4 gender-traits to combine different aspects of gender, we could also have 4 species traits.

Yes. But why not make Species distinctly separate instead of multiselect? What you say, if I get it right, is: All well-designed traits can stay like they are while all poorly designed traits we merge together and make them multi-select.

No, it's more that the traits that need multiselect to work properly should have multiselect. These ones are specifically poorly designed and have problems because they lack multiselect. I also think Loyalty and Atmosphere are poorly designed, but I'm not advocating that those become multiselect. (Maybe Atmosphere could benefit, but I like that trait little enough I've endorsed the suggestion for deleting it.)

If we want to have demon-cats we can simply make two species-traits. Species A is demon and Species B is cat.

I'm not sure I want to ask for traits to get repeated, but if this is about limiting the number of options, we could actually give species (or appearance, if we accept merging them) multiselect but limit you to 3 selections. It's not going to make nonsense combinations obsolete (you can do that with just 2), but it means people won't go any degree of overboard. (But if the point is to prevent people going overboard, I'd rather pick a large number like 5.)

No, it's more that the traits that need multiselect to work properly should have multiselect. These ones are specifically poorly designed and have problems because they lack multiselect. I also think Loyalty and Atmosphere are poorly designed, but I'm not advocating that those become multiselect. (Maybe Atmosphere could benefit, but I like that trait little enough I've endorsed the suggestion for deleting it.)

That is what I don't see. Demon and cat can be combined as good as a male-body and a female-mind. You are right for metric traits, body height tall and small I cannot combine. But for descriptive traits I don't see the difference. From my point of view you suggest two different solutions for what I see as the same problem. Gender and species are both traits with many difficult aspects. The solution for Gender is, to split it up into 4 gender-traits to define the gender exactly. The solution for Species is, to make one single species-trait and make it multiselect. I might be wrong, since it is a complex problem but I don't understand till now, where you see the difference.

Let's put it this way: Demon has actually been suggested as a species. Genuinely the whole reason it wasn't implemented was because you could be a demonic form of something in Species, like a demon cat. If you happened to be a human-lookin' demon, you'd pick Demihuman for a species.

The solution for Gender is, to split it up into 4 gender-traits to define the gender exactly.

Right, and the current gender traits suck. The discussion in here suggests just having three, only one of which we currently have. This suggestion nixes one of those proposed ones, so there will be just two left, which have genuinely no reason to be merged.

So being clear here, Demon was acknowledged as fine for a species, except for that most demons would also want to pick a different option in species as well, so we can't actually put it in species. We could totally have a Demon species right now, but who knows what kind of demon you'd be, and it was felt that losing that ability to express what species your demon-thing would actually look like was a problem.

Adding multiselect means there's no reason at all to not have Demon listed in species, so we can have that and love it.

Adding multiselect means there's no reason at all to not have Demon listed in species, so we can have that and love it.

Yes. But splitting species traits into two species would also permit to have a demon species I can combine with another species. There is always the choice between multiple single-select traits or a single multi-select trait.

Saying you chose which things get multiselect based on which things could realistically be combined doesn’t make sense to me. It’s more realistic for poverty and upper-class to be combined, since there are rich characters that give up control of their money to someone else. Since there are very poor characters with “sugar daddies”, and probably more of those than there are tigoats. I don’t see what bearing “realism” has on the situation though.

That's not very convincing. I can imagine what you mean when you combine wolf and dog. But how shall I interpret rich and poor? It could mean what you write and have a dozen other meanings. Combining two traits is useful if the meaning is clear.

The traits are poorly designed. They would be poorly designed with multiselect.

No, they wouldn't. For a multiselect trait it's no problem to describe more than one thing.

Species is for what a thing is and what it looks like

Yes. And that's a crucial point I think. But it doesn't count for all species. The species "God" for example is not defined by what the thing looks like.

Loki:

How? Why? When? Where?

I explained in the bit like right above what you're responding to there.

Yes. I know. You keep mentioning that as a reason this would be an improvement over the current system. And I don’t understand how. I just don’t. No matter how many times you repeat that adding traits and categories is bad.

This new system seems identical to the one we have now except that instead of dropdowns and lots of titles there are lists or buttons or both. Full of the exact same amount of information that those people have already complained about seeing, at all. I say the same amount because there absolutely has to be some indication that if you didn’t choose anything, it defaults to normal, or there have to be choices for normal/average.

That's the benefit: if you didn't choose anything, it defaults to normal. Now people can bother with whatever level of detail they want. If they don't want to deal with these unnecessary extraneous details, they just don't.

If you don't think that has any benefit, ok, I'm not going to try to convince you. We just disagree.

It’s more realistic for poverty and upper-class to be combined, since there are rich characters that give up control of their money to someone else.

Since upper-class is literally meant to be a wealth category, not a social status, you can't be both. Also, rich people who have externalised their money aren't people living in poverty: in fact, it's most rich people.

The traits are poorly designed. They would be poorly designed with multiselect. Yes, I mean species, body type, superpowers/natures, body mods, genitalia, and facial hair. Every single one of those tries to describe more than one thing or more than one combination of things.

乁( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )ㄏ Fine. Then you don't like this suggestion. Is there any benefit you think is going to come from us continuing to discuss this? I'm becoming increasingly convinced there isn't, and I don't consider it necessary to convince absolutely everyone this is a great idea. It's a good place for respectful discourse that leads to improving the site and the suggestion, but it's not a good place for two people to just have at it and butt heads.

(actually I'm confused on whether you think the multi-select has any merit, Loki, because you've been sending mixed signals about piercings)

That's the benefit: if you didn't choose anything, it defaults to normal.

Not sure if I get this right. Normal is not the same as irrelevant. I the wealth of my char is irrelevant because I can play her as rich or poor I don't want wealth to appear as "average".

Desdemona: I mean within the scope of multiselect traits. If your character's penis isn't prehensile, you just don't pick the "prehensile" option and the Penis trait for that character won't say it is. As opposed to having a prehensile penis trait where you have to pick "No".

My question every single time has been: but how does this help if you don't want to see that option at all, which is what the complaint you keep assuring is dealt with by this new system actually is.

I never mentioned anything about not wanting to see the option at all. Here's what I said:

A common complaint, even from established long-term users, is the system has too many traits to fill out, especially ones irrelevant to our characters.

There's loads of traits many of us have to fill out with "none", "nada", "the normal", "average", "nothing to see here", and there's more if we start adding lots of yes/nos. They all take up more reading space & more vertical height on the page, for expressing absolutely nothing remarkable.

Compare: "breast size: male, nipple size: average, nipple appearance: average, nipples inverted: no, prehensile penis: no, sentient penis: no, penis size: average, multiple penises: no, clit size: average, mons size: average, multiple vaginas: no"
Versus: "chest: male, average nipples; penis: average; vagina: average (or human or whatever)".

Both are a fairly unremarkable herm character, and say the same thing, only the second one does it in far less words, and each word is actually worth reading. (Have you ever read a book in which the author wasted your time with unnecessary details and enjoyed it?) The second also means that any extra features: prehensileness, inversion, sentience, etc, only even get mentioned if there's anything worth reading. Every word actually counts.

OK, and there's already something that's sitting in the roadmap to quickly autofill a bunch of traits.

Great! I'm really happy you have a suggestion you like! It's got nothing to do with this. Go talk about that one over there. It's not a one-or-the-other proposition.

Even if it's just filling them with N/A. An "unremarkable female herm" button would do an identical thing - indicate that a bunch of physical descriptions are none/average/normal without a person needing to pick them.

Again, it's not one-or-the-other. Great! You think there's another idea that also might sorta deals with one of the several issues this thing responds to! Awesome! I hope it does!

But, seriously, what's the point of us talking further? You have suggestions you like, you're not a fan of this one, fine. I've had to repeat myself a lot in talking to you and I don't think there's much value in you and I continuing to talk about this.

Well, see, I said a lot of what this is supposed to do in the "why", but in your very first post you rejected all of that outright.

The things you appear to think I've said are off topic, I haven't claimed are off topic. I urged us to keep this on topic once, earlier, when you and Desdemona started talking about profile inspirations. Since then, all I've been saying is it's pointless for you and I to talk: you seem to think every part of this suggestion does nothing, you seem to have rejected everything I have to say outright. Here's the thing: I don't need to or want to convince you in particular.

I don't want just a simple "yes" or "no". (I mean, sure, that's one kind of response that's helpful to see.) I'm interested in having a discussion that has a point, and "convince Loki, who is immovable" is not a very worthwhile discussion for me. A discussion that leads to specific improvements to how the suggestion operates is good, but so far you've been generally against everything entirely and I haven't been able to extract much useful specifics from that. (You don't even agree the body mods section needs multiselect, so I don't think we can agree on much of anything about what does.) Discussions over how effectively it solves particular issues would help, but for instance, right at the beginning you asked me accusatively about why this does't solve some other issue you're concerned about that this has nothing to do with, and you asked me it twice in a row, and that's been kinda tone-setting for me.

So, look, I'm tired of discussing this with you and I don't see where it's going or why I should continue.

I didn't talk about profile inspirations. My topic was from the beginning why I would genders like to be multiselect. As I said, this suggestion is very complex since there are many aspects: Advantages and problems of multiselect in general. Which traits should be multiselect and why. Which traits should be merged.

Desdemona: I mean within the scope of multiselect traits. If your character's penis isn't prehensile, you just don't pick the "prehensile" option and the Penis trait for that character won't say it is. As opposed to having a prehensile penis trait where you have to pick "No".

This is not right, you don't have to set traits you can simply leave them away. There is no fitting body type for a succubus for example, it's not human (a tail) and not anthro or kemonomimi. I could have chosen "other" but I generally don't set traits which don't carry information or give misleading informations. Body type "other" would give the impression: too strange for categorization. The species demihuman anyway defines the body. Same with the prehensile penis trait, if I have no penis, I will set the sex-trait to "vagina" and ignore all penis-traits. If I set hair length to bald I wont set hair color to none, I wont set it at all. It's a matter of your personal style if you set all traits or not, but not a matter of multiselect or not.

That wasn't directed toward you, Desdemona.

This is not right, you don't have to set traits you can simply leave them away.

I know. Currently setting preferences requires setting them, though. I've left a lot that I don't know how to fill out, or don't want to fill out, blank. Maybe the requirements for setting preferences will change in the future.

I was imagining preferences would remain the same.

Like usual if there's no option to pick and you don't pick it, you just don't have that option.

I've been contemplating breaking this up and just suggesting it in individual, easier to discuss chunks. Less to read and talk about.

Just traits fill themselves out. Preferences would have to have that none or n/a option available for selection.

The body types are in there because of kemonomimi and naga, and I got overzealous at 3am when I wrote this out because I couldn't sleep for thinking about it anyway. (Thank goodness I was on Xmas vacation.) Probably not absolutely all of them should have been in there.

Now I understand. I guess that much only makes sense if we continue with a pressure to fill absolutely every trait out.

No comment is also a great way to say "this is so irrelevant I don't even want to fill it out." Nobody's asking Bubblegum if she has facial hair or multiple vaginas. Sounds more like you need a "maybe sometimes" thing.

Not all of them, only body type, species and supernatural-nature. Since there is a close relation between species and body-type this would work, I think.

We won't act on this so I'm marking this rejected. This is not a condemnation of all features suggested in here, so I invite others to bring them up again in the future.