litphoria

After discussion/WA's verdict, edited to simplify:

Renaming Will Try category (currently meant to denote something that the player doesn't have much experience in) to something that's more meant to indicate that another player would ask about, or only works at certain times. Current suggestion as of the edit is to situational.

I agree that, in that case, core does make sense, but if that's its intended use it seems rather limited (as well as not how people are using it currently). Things that should serve as the foundation for roleplaying more or less are mandatory, or at least are less distinct from mandatory than a love would be from a like, especially since if we used 'things that inspired you to make the profile' as the measuring stick it will likely only ever have a few interests contained within it. Less if they're split up between core and mandatory.

Meanwhile, there's a big difference between 'interests that I'd be happy to have as a major basis for a roleplay/major theme within a roleplay' and 'interests that I enjoy, but don't want to completely focus on', all of which would have to be lumped into just yes with this setup. It also means that a lot of interests will struggle to legitimately find their way into core or mandatory, considering that they aren't fantastic things to build a character around a lot of the time. It's easy to build an adventuring character, but someone that really likes, say, rimming would either need to create a really weird and/or shallow character for it to be part of their mandatory/core lists with these qualifications, and wouldn't have any good way other than an unsearchable explanation saying 'I really like this' in the interest box to make that clear to readers.

The point is not to have "I really like this", "I like this", "I don't really like this", and "I don't like this" lists though. The point is to have meaningful lists that can be identified immediately and categorized in each slot easily. It is very easy to determine if a play must have this interest to enjoy it. It is very easy to determine if this interest was foundational or inspirational to the use or creation of this character. It is very easy to determine if you don't have a lot of experience with an interest. It is very easy to determine interests you don't want to play with.

It is much less easy to determine things you simply like versus things you like a lot, and you end up with people just splitting them between the two lists just so one doesn't look "unbalanced" to the others. To me, the fact that putting too many in one list is a problem at all is indicative of the whole concept of lists needing to be reworked, not that the categorization is poor.

The core list was always intended to only have a few interests in it, just like the mandatory one. In fact, the first iteration of the site only allowed you to have five interests in your core column, to really identify what was central to your profile. Back then, interests were different (hierarchical), so it would let you categorize all of the BDSM in it or have five BDSM interests to show how wide-spread your interests were. I think this concept can still be used to show breadth of inspiration for the profile - if you have mostly BDSM-y interests in there, it's pretty clear the profile is BDSM-centric. If you have one BDSM-y thing in there and the rest of it is story-related stuff, well, you can draw just as many conclusions from that.

In summary, lists should be obvious categorizations that tell a lot about the character and the interests you should use with them. A list of favorites doesn't really do this in the same way a list of things you have to use and things that inspired the profile, and splitting the difference is often meaningless for yes/favorite.

Ah, I guess that's where we have a difference of opinion then. I can see a place for core and/or required, but I also can see a huge amount of utility in the ability to say what degree of 'like' is applied to something, especially given that the other ones are designed to be either designating inexperience or whether it's a core concept. Just as an illustrating point: Meleda. I really like BDSM-ey stuff and would love an RP based somewhat around that more than I would one that's based around adultery, which I'm more willing to add in to the story because it fits with her concept. However, both are 'yes' in this case because neither of them has anything to do with why I made the character and I have no way of indicating a preference for one over the other. Anyone looking at the profile, however, will be assuming that I value them equally. To me, the confusion caused by that outweighs the benefit of splitting core and mandatory by a considerably margin, especially considering how few people seem to be using mandatory for things other than very broad interests like story or sex.

Yeah, a rename to inexperienced might work, but that might also be too long for a label.

I actually tend to agree with Meleda, that Yes is far too broad a category. Just because I like something does not mean that I want partners approaching me with that particular thing every single time. And if you have something in the yes category, and then tell another that you are not interested in a fifth encounter with that same subject matter, it will make you look like do not know how to form a character. While I, and my character, may thoroughly enjoy interest XYZ, which happened to be a popular interest, it may not be something that is desired all of, or even most of the time. I feel like the people who would evenly divide would just be crippling themselves, where someone who has many liked interests, and a few 'loved but not mandatory, this will never get boring for me to play' interests will benefit greatly from a change like this.

And if you have something in the yes category, and then tell another that you are not interested in a fifth encounter with that same subject matter, it will make you look like do not know how to form a character.

I can't quite see how it would change anything - people would still approach you about something you have in Yes not some other Yes++ group even if we have it, just because they liked your character and want that thing to happen. It is not like having loved, favourite or anything like that will make people not poke about your Yes.

As far as the thing between Core and Mandatory goes, I would agree that apart from very-very broad things (Story, Sex, Realism) everything else that appears there can be pretty much reasoned in such a way that they can be moved from Mandatory to Core - and not like we can't pretty much make the same case for the mentioned three. Actually seeing a profile from time to time that has Mandatories which I would put in Core if I was them.

Also, a wild thought - perhaps tooltip or other way of explicitly defining what given category is for is better than name-changing? I think the basic issue is that we try to have something universally understood, which is not a 100% realistic goal - and leads to differing interpretations. Making it be defined in the site itself would at least clear use cases, and that could (maybe) address a fair bit of problems.

On the "understanding what they're for" font, I think Roel brings up a good point. No matter what labels we identify there will be some tribal knowledge behind them and someone will interpret the words in whatever way. I have little question marks with tooltips them for other "confusing" things, those would probably be good additions.

I can't quite see how it would change anything - people would still approach you about something you have in Yes not some other Yes++ group even if we have it, just because they liked your character and want that thing to happen. It is not like having loved, favourite or anything like that will make people not poke about your Yes.

This could be partially solved (as well as make it a little more objective, for WA's sake) by thinking of the 'favourite' grouping as 'things that I would happily run an RP around', while making yes 'things that can be included'. At the very least, it'd prevent issues from people getting burnt out on a popular minor interest that people are routinely asking to be the focus of a full RP, and provided that the favourite list is filled out correctly it means that the core of an RP will never be something that someone is tired of (it's easy/proper to move something from 'favourite' to 'yes', in this case, but could easily result in a flawed profile with just one 'yes' column). It'd also lend itself well to a smooth system. 'Things that MUST be in a roleplay', 'things that can make up a base for a roleplay', 'things that can be included in a roleplay', 'things that may be included in a roleplay, sometimes', 'things that shouldn't be included in a roleplay'.

'things that I would happily run an RP around',

This is OK by me, but I feel this would be just as limiting as 'things central to your character's interests and inspiration for their creation'. This could even just become a suffix to the current description for all I cared: 'interests central to your character's interests, inspirational for their creation and use; an interest that could form the basis of a roleplay'.

However, the name favorite will not do as people will just assume it is exactly the same as it is on other sites and completely ignore any attempts to educate otherwise (learned behavior).

but could easily result in a flawed profile with just one 'yes' column

Let us not get caught up on unbalanced lists, this is just the fault of a list-based system full stop. We should have meaningful categories which needn't be "balanced" but provide high utility while being very obvious to fill out.

This is OK by me, but I feel this would be just as limiting as 'things central to your character's interests and inspiration for their creation'. This could even just become a suffix to the current description for all I cared: 'interests central to your character's interests, inspirational for their creation and use; an interest that could form the basis of a roleplay'.

This works for me, because I feel that 'basis of a roleplay' is a very important addition (especially if we do add tooltips, which I would support). As an example: Say I want to create a 'normal' character. Just an average, everyday, human, college-age, not the best at anything, no incredible station in life... Either because it works better for 'slice of life' RPs or because all of the goddesses and space marines and giant lynxes work best with someone at least pseudo-normal to play against. There isn't really much that you could call an 'inspiration' there, besides sex or story (which, considering how many people have on their mandatory/core lists, we might want to consider moving up into a preference. Still, discussion for another place.). But, if I, OOC, would really like an RP based around violence or bondage or cuddling or whatever with that average character, it would fit under the new definition.

Let us not get caught up on unbalanced lists

I didn't mean it in the sense of unbalanced. I meant more that with only a single main indicator of yes vs. no, it's going to be less obvious to people (or me, at least), what they want to fill out and will likely result in information that less accurately reflects reality. It's better if we do the expansion to core and rename will try to situational, but with just a single yes list it becomes a question of what gets you the sorts of RPs you prefer, rather than what you're truly willing to play. Will adding a bunch of things that I do enjoy playing distract from those 'yesses' that didn't quite make the core list, but that I still like better than most? Is that distraction worth it considering that I do actually like these things? I, at least, can't bring myself to be completely honest in that scenario, because just throwing everything that I legitimately will play with a character onto their yes list means that I'll likely have a worse time with them, because the chances of including a healthy percentage of things I really like vs things I kindof like goes down.

Discussion has died down, here's my take aways:

• Not for renaming core, mandatory, or no
• Not certain on the rename of will try to situational, feels a little too much like maybe to me which was intentionally avoided
• Expansion of core is fine
• We should probably have another suggestion for adding little questions marks to explain each list so regardless of our terminology people can understand what the lists are for

I will not unblock this until the renames regarding core, mandatory, and no are gone.

Just before I do that: Why was maybe intentionally avoided? I agree that it's ambiguous, but you've got a lot of people asking for a list that is basically a maybe, because it is a valuable thing to have. There are a lot of things that people want to play out some of the time, so putting them even as high as yes seems wrong, especially since they don't just want them thrown in out of nowhere. True it gets abused somewhat on F-list because people seem to use it as a softer no list, but that doesn't mean there isn't a very valid reason for wanting it.

Maybe was avoided because it was ambiguous. People found so much value in it because everyone made up their own interpretation for it and stuck things in there when they weren't confident enough to put them in either yes or no, so it became a list that was half yes, but, and half no, unless, meaning the entire list was effectively useless for observers, as you'd have to ask them about everything on the list to see if you could do it (and they might as well just be unlisted at that point). You'd have people putting stuff in that list that they would never practically play with unless there was freakish circumstances. That is not helpful.

Also, just because it is something people are used to and want does not mean it is in the best interest of the site. I have taken a pretty firm stance that profiles should be, first and foremost, functional. You feeling uncomfortable because you have too much in your yes list is fine, because that's what your list is honestly. If you will play the interest but do not feel that it forms the core of your interests nor is required, that's where it belongs.

The will try list here has a very definite and clear purpose. Situational is better than maybe because the word itself sounds closer to yes, but which is an acceptable use of will try. However, each of the lists should be immediately apparent as to what interest goes in where, allowing observers to immediately know if they can use an interest or not, and a category like maybe defeats that entirely. My objections with the rename to situational from will try is just that it makes its purpose much more vague and is more easily interpreted as a generic maybe.

Just to provide a counterargument to that though, putting something in yes is tantamount to giving someone permission to use it in an RP, without asking. Even if this isn't your intent (though from what I've seen so far, it isn't), this will undoubtedly be the prevailing attitude of people coming from F-list or similar. This means that putting something into your yes list that does require special circumstances isn't functional, even if you will play it. It's actively working against the person that's doing so. Same with putting it into a no list, just because then you're missing out on the opportunities it brings.

Will try has a purpose, but (especially without tooltips) I don't know how many people will use it for the intended purpose of distinguishing between 'yes and I am experienced' and 'yes and I am not experienced' and how useful that purpose is for a list like this because both cases are essentially the same in terms of how willing someone is to use that interest. I really do think there needs to be something along the lines of a situational or even a generic maybe, because people's interests are incredibly hard to boil down to a binary yes/no and, despite the fact that it it doesn't allow for an immediate 'I can play this' judgement (though asking people whether they think that will try does might be a useful thing, because I don't, personally), maps better to how people really think about interests work with their character. When you consider that a lot of the ambiguity/etc would be helped by the fact that people can add additional information to the situational/maybe interests, I could see them being used well, rather than as just another dumping ground.

As an example just to illustrate the problem I have with the current system: One of my other characters is very much something of a 'free love'/hippy type centaur that's designed around the idea of sex as a religious rite and an important part of her rather insular culture. OOCly, I can really enjoy BDSM/Bondage/Etc, but ICly she'd absolutely hate them. So, where and how can I put those sorts of interests so that I don't have problems? Obviously I can't put them in mandatory or core, since despite the fact that I like them and can think up several ideas for them, they aren't what she's based around. I can't really put them in yes because that would both likely give other people bad search results as well as make things likely that the sort of scene she is focused around gets completely disrupted by someone breaking out the bridal and the riding crop because they failed to read the info attached. I can't put them in will try because it's functionally the same as yes and I'm not lacking in experience with any of them and I don't want to put them in no because, as I said, I really do have a few good ideas that would centre around them.

I don't have any issue with you leaving this to argue that we need situational instead of will try, but I'm not unblocking it, like I said, until the mentions of renaming core, mandatory, and no are gone.

Edited title/description to simply. The core expansion is only something that will really matter after tooltips are added to the category names.

Situational would be good, especially if users were encouraged to add Context on why it's situational.