Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

POSSIBLE FORUM TWEAK - FEEDBACK WANTED! : )

darkangel76 said:
Another question....is it possible, when using closed tags, to choose more than one for a given set. Say you have a set that has 6 options and 3 apply. Is it possible to have it where you could choose all three and disregard the others. Then, of course, you could do the same or not with the other sets as well.

Sorry for the potentially strange questions. >.<
Click to expand...

That's a big part of the idea, yes. It's why there can only be so many options in a set.
 
Can you specify the limitations. I know I'm not aware of what those are specifically. And can we have sets assigned in a section basis?
 
Okay, I've got a better idea of what you're proposing, now. Thank you, DA and Vek. It sounds like an amazing general upgrade to the forum, and will turn request threads into more of a library and less of a pile. Love it~
 
What do you mean by assigning sets on a section basis?

If you're referring to them being limited to a forum or forums - yes. Long term it doesn't really make sense otherwise.



Limitations are largely UI and comprehension-based. They're basically preferences when viewing a forum and options when making/editing a thread. Think of the 'power search' options on Newegg, XoticPC, etc.

Thinking on that, it may be desirable to make members manage multiple requests, and/or tie them to character (groups) F-list style, but that's a bridge we can burn as these things take shape.
 
Sorry, by section, I mean request thread sections and RP thread sections. Sorry about that.

That's the idea, Try. Glad you like. <3
 
Ok. I think I'm starting to understand this a bit more as far as the technical goes. So, I'm envisioning--as of now--for the breakdown for the closed sets for both Request Threads and RPs to be as follows ~

Pairing Tags:

[MxF] - male x female
[MxM] male x male
[FxF] - female x female
[MxFxF+] - male x at least two females
[FxMxM+] - female x at least two males
[MxFuta] - male x futa
[FxFuta] - female x futa
[MxAny] - male x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)
[FxAny] - female x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)

~~

Location Tags:

[thread] - RPs in threads
[PM] - RPs in PMs
[IM] - RPs in IMs
- RPs in emails

~~

Plot vs Smut Ratio Tags:

[Pure smut] - smut only (100% smut, story is irrelevant)
[Mostly smut] - smut drives the story (very little plot is present)
[Balanced] - a healthy mix of story and sex (50/50 mix)
[Mostly plot] - plot drives the story (sex is an enhancement to the story)
[Pure plot] - plot only (100% plot, little to no sex in the story)

~~

Word Count Tags:

[Less than 100 words] - posts are typically 100 words or less
[100 - 300 words] - posts typically range between 100 - 300 words
[300 - 500 words] - posts typically range between 300 - 500 words
[500 words or more] - posts are typically 500 words or more
[Variable] - word count for posts vary depending on several factors

~~

Longevity Tags:

[Short-term] - RPs that last a short duration of time, typically no longer than a month or so...though as short as a single day
[Long-term] - RPs that last a long duration of time, typically longer than a month or so...some can last up to a year or longer
[Back and forth] - RPs where both writers consent to a mutually write posts back and forth for a designated amount of time...this usually occurs over IMs and PMs, though it can occur over threads as well

~~

Levels of Consent Tags:

[Asexual] - asexual
[Consensual] - consensual
[Pseudo non-con] - consensual non-consent
[Non-con] - non-consent

That all said, I'm thinking that we should leave originality an open much like kinks and genre will more or less have to be open sets. I think this because people use more than one option when it comes to how they might RP their fandoms. As an example, I will RP both OCs and canon characters in an established fandom setting.
 
darkangel76 said:
Ok. I think I'm starting to understand this a bit more as far as the technical goes. So, I'm envisioning--as of now--for the breakdown for the closed sets for both Request Threads and RPs to be as follows ~

Pairing Tags:

[MxF] - male x female
[MxM] male x male
[FxF] - female x female
[MxFxF+] - male x at least two females
[FxMxM+] - female x at least two males
[MxFuta] - male x futa
[FxFuta] - female x futa
[MxAny] - male x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)
[FxAny] - female x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)

~~

Location Tags:

[thread] - RPs in threads
[PM] - RPs in PMs
[IM] - RPs in IMs
- RPs in emails

~~

Plot vs Smut Ratio Tags:

[Pure smut] - smut only (100% smut, story is irrelevant)
[Mostly smut] - smut drives the story (very little plot is present)
[Balanced] - a healthy mix of story and sex (50/50 mix)
[Mostly plot] - plot drives the story (sex is an enhancement to the story)
[Pure plot] - plot only (100% plot, little to no sex in the story)

~~

Word Count Tags:

[Less than 100 words] - posts are typically 100 words or less
[100 - 300 words] - posts typically range between 100 - 300 words
[300 - 500 words] - posts typically range between 300 - 500 words
[500 words or more] - posts are typically 500 words or more
[Variable] - word count for posts vary depending on several factors

~~

Longevity Tags:

[Short-term] - RPs that last a short duration of time, typically no longer than a month or so...though as short as a single day
[Long-term] - RPs that last a long duration of time, typically longer than a month or so...some can last up to a year or longer
[Back and forth] - RPs where both writers consent to a mutually write posts back and forth for a designated amount of time...this usually occurs over IMs and PMs, though it can occur over threads as well

~~

Levels of Consent Tags:

[Asexual] - asexual
[Consensual] - consensual
[Pseudo non-con] - consensual non-consent
[Non-con] - non-consent

That all said, I'm thinking that we should leave originality an open much like kinks and genre will more or less have to be open sets. I think this because people use more than one option when it comes to how they might RP their fandoms. As an example, I will RP both OCs and canon characters in an established fandom setting.
[/quote]

This seems pretty good. owo

Pairing tags seem pretty much perfect.

Location tags look great. I'd say perhaps also an [other] tag? I'm not sure every single potential medium can be covered by tags so it'd be nice to have for those who have a great preference for something else?
But then again those who use it might all be putting different things and...I dunno, I guess it's down to the tag mechanics. If someone with a search thread uses none of these, I imagine they won't be seen when someone searches for certain location tags? In which case people open to other mediums could just pick the "other" tag as well and then see their threads and then specifically what they want, and then yay, no one's completely left out!

Plot vs Smut Ratio Tags seem alright. Seem to cover things pretty well.

I've ranted plenty about the whole post length thing, so I won't again...But I guess these don't seem to bad. If we're going with anything I do still think word counts are the ones with least room for confusion, so that's cool. I also like that there's a "variable" tag.

Longevity Tags also look good. The back and forth one is a pretty good idea! x3

Level of consent...This one I honestly wouldn't go with? It's pretty much going into kinks. But that may just be me.

I don't think a a tag for "fandom" and one simply for "original" would be very bad. No need to go with the [ECOS] / [OCES] / [CCOS] / [CCES], or anything, though I don't think they'd do a bad job of covering it.
Basically just two tags, no need need to go into into any specifics, be it canon or OC preference, specific fandoms or genres for originals - like you said, that works better with open sets.
I only say this because I see plenty of people with threads specifically looking for fandom RPs and what not, so having a tag to cover those would probably be useful. o.o Then people interested in one kind or the other could search for or not include something in their searches as they see fit.
Click to expand...
 
Huzzah on the Pairing Tags! XD

I was actually thinking about an [other] tag not long after I posted my previous response. So I'm glad it was brought up. Yes, I think that could and should be added to round out the Location Tags.

Another huzzah for Plot va Smut Ratio Tags. Honestly, it's probably the best and easiest way to do it.

On the Word Count Tags......if we're going to include anything akin to this concept, I think this is the best way. It's the most rounded and least offensive. I also think it cuts to the chase easily enough, especially with [Variable] in there. : )

Woot! Glad to hear a positive on the Longevity Tags. XD

We can either do with or without the Level Of Consent Tags. Those are just an idea we're playing with. If the general consensus is more or less 'nah', we don't have our heart set on it. But we figured we'd throw it out there for feedback.

As for tags with Fandoms, we just want to have more than two options for a closed set. So therein lies some of the issue there. Otherwise, it gets too convoluted and really needs to fall in the realm of open so that people can label and overlap accordingly. I just don't see how to do that here with a closed tag set where you have three options or more.
 
I personally don't see the need for fandom tags but if we feel the need to, we can just have generic tags like [Anime] , [TV] , [Video Games] , [Movies] , [Novels] ?

I'm also worried that [FxAny] tag would include robots and animals -_-
 
I think the generic tags might not work well as a closed set, but rather as an open tag much like kinks or genres would. So I do think we'll have to leave fandom tags and anything associated—like specific Fandoms, as an example—as open.

Well, the xAny could potentially include such things, but it wouldn't be limited to that. Also, if you have thread RPs, those would be labeled with a specific pair and, more than likely, not the 'generic' unless it was an extremely special circumstance. I know, for myself, I'd probably still pick MxF for my own RPs if my writing partner wrote a shifter or anthro or cyborg. Why? They'd be males. Well, the main character would be anyway.
 
So, what do people think of this updated closed tag list? I've added in [other] for Location and took out Levels of Consent. However, I did add in a set that I'm surprised no one brought up: Voice. So take a peek and let me know your thoughts. : )


Pairing Tags:

[MxF] - male x female
[MxM] male x male
[FxF] - female x female
[MxFxF+] - male x at least two females
[FxMxM+] - female x at least two males
[MxFuta] - male x futa
[FxFuta] - female x futa
[MxAny] - male x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)
[FxAny] - female x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)

~~

Location Tags:

[thread] - RPs in threads
[PM] - RPs in PMs
[IM] - RPs in IMs
- RPs in emails
[other] - RPs in other media

~~

Plot vs Smut Ratio Tags:

[Pure smut] - smut only (100% smut, story is irrelevant)
[Mostly smut] - smut drives the story (very little plot is present)
[Balanced] - a healthy mix of story and sex (50/50 mix)
[Mostly plot] - plot drives the story (sex is an enhancement to the story)
[Pure plot] - plot only (100% plot, little to no sex in the story)

~~

Word Count Tags:

[Less than 100 words] - posts are typically 100 words or less
[100 - 300 words] - posts typically range between 100 - 300 words
[300 - 500 words] - posts typically range between 300 - 500 words
[500 words or more] - posts are typically 500 words or more
[Variable] - word count for posts vary depending on several factors

~~

Longevity Tags:

[Short-term] - RPs that last a short duration of time, typically no longer than a month or so...though as short as a single day
[Long-term] - RPs that last a long duration of time, typically longer than a month or so...some can last up to a year or longer
[Back and forth] - RPs where both writers consent to a mutually write posts back and forth for a designated amount of time...this usually occurs over IMs and PMs, though it can occur over threads as well

~~

Voice Tags:

[1st person limited past] - writes in 1st person past tense, keeps to the main character's POV only
[1st person limited present] - writes in 1st person present tense, keeps to the main character's POV only
[3rd person limited past] - writes in 3rd person past tense, keeps to the main character's POV only
[3rd person limited present] - writes in 3rd person present tense, keeps to the main character's POV only
[3rd person omniscient past] - writes in 3rd person past tense, shows POVs of multiple characters
[3rd person omniscient present] - writes in 3rd person present tense, shows POVs of multiple characters
[*action* and textspeak] - writes using *actions* and textspeak as opposed to standard sentences and narration voice
[self-insert] - writes from a self-insertion POV, this can be 1st or 3rd person depending on preference
 
darkangel76 said:
So, what do people think of this updated closed tag list? I've added in [other] for Location and took out Levels of Consent. However, I did add in a set that I'm surprised no one brought up: Voice. So take a peek and let me know your thoughts. : )


Pairing Tags:

[MxF] - male x female
[MxM] male x male
[FxF] - female x female
[MxFxF+] - male x at least two females
[FxMxM+] - female x at least two males
[MxFuta] - male x futa
[FxFuta] - female x futa
[MxAny] - male x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)
[FxAny] - female x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)

~~

Location Tags:

[thread] - RPs in threads
[PM] - RPs in PMs
[IM] - RPs in IMs
- RPs in emails
[other] - RPs in other media

~~

Plot vs Smut Ratio Tags:

[Pure smut] - smut only (100% smut, story is irrelevant)
[Mostly smut] - smut drives the story (very little plot is present)
[Balanced] - a healthy mix of story and sex (50/50 mix)
[Mostly plot] - plot drives the story (sex is an enhancement to the story)
[Pure plot] - plot only (100% plot, little to no sex in the story)

~~

Word Count Tags:

[Less than 100 words] - posts are typically 100 words or less
[100 - 300 words] - posts typically range between 100 - 300 words
[300 - 500 words] - posts typically range between 300 - 500 words
[500 words or more] - posts are typically 500 words or more
[Variable] - word count for posts vary depending on several factors

~~

Longevity Tags:

[Short-term] - RPs that last a short duration of time, typically no longer than a month or so...though as short as a single day
[Long-term] - RPs that last a long duration of time, typically longer than a month or so...some can last up to a year or longer
[Back and forth] - RPs where both writers consent to a mutually write posts back and forth for a designated amount of time...this usually occurs over IMs and PMs, though it can occur over threads as well

~~

Voice Tags:

[1st person limited past] - writes in 1st person past tense, keeps to the main character's POV only
[1st person limited present] - writes in 1st person present tense, keeps to the main character's POV only
[3rd person limited past] - writes in 3rd person past tense, keeps to the main character's POV only
[3rd person limited present] - writes in 3rd person present tense, keeps to the main character's POV only
[3rd person omniscient past] - writes in 3rd person past tense, shows POVs of multiple characters
[3rd person omniscient present] - writes in 3rd person present tense, shows POVs of multiple characters
[*action* and textspeak] - writes using *actions* and textspeak as opposed to standard sentences and narration voice
[self-insert] - writes from a self-insertion POV, this can be 1st or 3rd person depending on preference
[/quote]

Oooh, that is an interesting idea.

First, on the pairings thing:
I don't think the FxAny and MxAny seem much of an invitation for robots or animals or any odd things, at least not much more than the other pairing tags? Going from context one could probably surmise they relate to gender/sex.
Though, if it will be possible to have a description for each tag (I hope it is o.o), or if not I guess some sort of little tag guide sticky might be in order...In either case, perhaps specify there? That "any" also refers to any other possibilities on the gender and sex spectrum, like genderless to shapeshifters who can do both or...whatever other good examples to get the point across.

Alternatively, maybe these could have (or also have) an "other" option too? Basically keeping male and female, as well as proably futa still because they're pretty popular, but then having MxOther, FxOther, and what not to cover, like I said above, all the other possibilities on the gender and sex spectrum.
Then basically people interested in all of them would just put all tags that apply. Or people who are, for example, interested in FxF and FxFuta and FxOther but not males, would just use...those. Then specify in thread if they felt the need.
I hope I'm making sense. ^^;

Lastly, that would also leave the option for OtherxOther? And now that I think about it, maybe FutaxFuta? FutaxOther? I honestly don't know how needed these are because I don't make those sorts of searches nor do I look at them (not my field of interest), but since we have the "Roleplay Requests by Uncategorized Others" maybe there should be tags to better apply there.

Like I said before, I liked (and still do) the pairings tags so far...because they work perfectly well for me. But when I got to thinking and looking at other possibilities as to what people might look for, that all came to mind. So, there you go, stuff for you to think about too now. xD

Now (holy crap I ended up going on longer aboput the pairing than I thought), the voice tags:

I like this idea! Indeed, I can't believe it didn't come up earlier. o.o
[Self-Insert] I'm not sure about? I think it speaks more about the character than the actual narration voice (as you even mention 1st or 3rd person can apply here). It might not be needed?

[*action* and textspeak] could just be [*action*], perhaps? Not all *action* rps necessarily involve textspeak, I think. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean with textspeak. @.@

Personally, I'm pretty much cool with the rest of them. (I'm not particularly uncool with the other two, I just had those lil thoughts to offer. xD) Though do you think they might be too specific? 1st person past, 1st person present, 3rd person past, 3rd person present, those are the basics and I think are good, I just don't know about the omniscient/limited thing. BMR is pretty much for all levels of writing as I understand it, and I don't know if everyone is familiar with those, whether they didn't learn them or don't recall or what have you. There might be people who are confused or don't know where they fall on.
That said, this is just me, and I am really humbly saying that I [i]don't know[/i]. My education wasn't...normal by my country's standards in the first place, and additionally I'm not from where I imagine the majority of BMR users are even from! I'm familiar with the whole omniscient/limited, I just have no idea whether most other users are or not.
Ok enough rambling.

Last thing is, maybe a tag of some sort for 1st & 2nd person? This is another thing I don't have experience with, I just see it around. There are people who write in 1st person that use 1st and 3rd, as in "I looked into her eyes", but then there are people who play referring to their partner in the 2nd person, like "I looked into your eyes". I used past tense but it's done in present too. I don't know what to call it or anything, just pointing it because it might be good to include somehow.

Sorry, I feel like I rambled a lot today. It's because I'm actually pretty excited for this system to be applied! I think it'll be awesome. x3 So I'm hoping to at least help a little with my (very long) thoughts on things. o.o
Click to expand...
 
I like it. looks good to me, the only thing not there that I would find useful is consent tags. I saw them mentioned earlier on in the thread. I might be in the minority here though, I like to play with varying degrees of consent.​
 
I think having tags for first and third person are a little too in depth? I mean, third and first person work fine, I dunno if tensing brings much to it?
 
I'm with broom, I'd be confused. I write in third and looking at these tags I have no clue which I would pick. Perhaps, just leave it with first, third, textspeak and *actions*.

I don't think that the consent is necessary, simply because it would be covered with the kinks and per idea, some stories are non-con and others are strictly con.

Everything else looks good thought the pairings should include more for those in the other and unspecified requests. Maybe m/fxUnspec or m/f x other? (I think this was suggested...)
 
Well, the main reason I included the tenses is because I've come across people who do actually utilize past vs present and...I prefer past. lol! So, I wanted to differentiate that for people since I know it's important to me and figured it might be for others. >.<

And to address the whole limited vs omniscient. There's actually a good reason as to why I included this. People who prefer to use limited, in my own experiences as an RPer (and I'm talking about RP here, NOT writing a novel...that is a different way of writing), are those who don't particularly care to write side characters or multiple characters in any way. They do not like to flesh them out, get into their heads. They just strictly want to stick to your character and their own with either little to no other characters entering the story at all. Those who prefer to use omniscient--like myself--are people who like to include side characters or multiple characters where you get to see inside their mind and learn their POV. You do NOT just stick to the main character, you flesh out everyone and include them all. I hope that helps to explain why I think it's important to include those. I know I get very disheartened when I start RPing with someone, the story is going well and you see that the story just NEEDS to have more characters to make it shine, but....your writing partner tells you that they don't like writing more than their main. It's like...knife to the gut. The interest wanes and before long, the RP dies. At least for me.

Now, the reason I included self-insert was because you can be in the middle of discussing your plot. Things can be great! You have an idea, plot points coming along and everything looks like it's going to flow smoothly. You even agree on where you're going to be posting, kinks, everything! Then, you start talking about your characters...fine tuning them. Suddenly, your writing partner says that they post in the same narrative voice as you. Let's say third person omniscient past tense. You get bouncy! Then......they tell you that they want your character to have your traits and likewise their character will have their own. Suddenly.....it's a self-insert and possibly a deal breaker. Wouldn't it have been nice to know this ahead of time? I don't know, but I would. Or maybe that's just me. >///<

With the *action* and textspeak. I can easily just make that one into an and/or type of tag: [*action* and/or textspeak]. More or less, the point of that particular tag is for those who like to RP quickly, not use complete sentences, etc etc. More than likely, people RPing this way will be looking for very fast-paced RP.

Another narration voice I suppose I could also include is 2nd person. It's a bizarre one to use for RP and probably would really only come up if you were a true DM and didn't have a character, but were completely directing someone else's. I honestly don't see how else 2nd person would work. @_@ So, if people have thoughts on that...feel free to chime in there. An example of 2nd person would be: You walked down the darkened corridor and came upon a door. You reached out when you finally came to the door at the end, your hand touching the hard wood and sliding down to grip the wrought-iron handle. Your fingers clutched it, squeezing tightly, as your body leaned against the heavy wood. With all your might, you pushed it open and entered the room beyond.

Back to the pairings a bit.....I'm fine adding in other options to make them a bit more rounded. That can certainly be done. We want to make sure everyone has the choices that they want presented in the listing, so.... XD I don't see why we can't have:
[FutaxAny] - futa x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)
[AnyxAny] anything x anything (where anything includes male, female, futa and any other option you can dream up)
[FutaxFuta] - futa x futa
[MxOther] - male x other (where other is defined as anyone not decidedly male or female OR is not human)
[FxOther] - female x other (where other is defined as anyone not decidedly male or female OR is not human)
[FutaxOther] - futa x other (where other is defined as anyone not decidedly male or female OR is not human)
[OtherxOther] - other x other (where other is defined as anyone not decidedly male or female OR is not human)
Also, with all the tags, I plan on having the definitions listed in a sticky in all pertinent sections along with in the site rules.

As for consent tags....people seem to be wavering on them. I'm neither here nor there on it. So, I'd like to hear more voices regarding their thoughts on them.
 
darkangel76 said:
Well, the main reason I included the tenses is because I've come across people who do actually utilize past vs present and...I prefer past. lol! So, I wanted to differentiate that for people since I know it's important to me and figured it might be for others. >.<

And to address the whole limited vs omniscient. There's actually a good reason as to why I included this. People who prefer to use limited, in my own experiences as an RPer (and I'm talking about RP here, NOT writing a novel...that is a different way of writing), are those who don't particularly care to write side characters or multiple characters in any way. They do not like to flesh them out, get into their heads. They just strictly want to stick to your character and their own with either little to no other characters entering the story at all. Those who prefer to use omniscient--like myself--are people who like to include side characters or multiple characters where you get to see inside their mind and learn their POV. You do NOT just stick to the main character, you flesh out everyone and include them all. I hope that helps to explain why I think it's important to include those. I know I get very disheartened when I start RPing with someone, the story is going well and you see that the story just NEEDS to have more characters to make it shine, but....your writing partner tells you that they don't like writing more than their main. It's like...knife to the gut. The interest wanes and before long, the RP dies. At least for me.
Click to expand...

I've had this same problem in the past, where people don't like developing other characters besides their main, so I totally agree with the need to differentiate. But I'm wondering whether we should just add a tag like [Multi Character] or something, because not everyone is going to want to know or care about the actual writing perspectives. But most people know what you mean when you say you want to write as or against multiple characters.

darkangel76 said:
Now, the reason I included self-insert was because you can be in the middle of discussing your plot. Things can be great! You have an idea, plot points coming along and everything looks like it's going to flow smoothly. You even agree on where you're going to be posting, kinks, everything! Then, you start talking about your characters...fine tuning them. Suddenly, your writing partner says that they post in the same narrative voice as you. Let's say third person omniscient past tense. You get bouncy! Then......they tell you that they want your character to have your traits and likewise their character will have their own. Suddenly.....it's a self-insert and possibly a deal breaker. Wouldn't it have been nice to know this ahead of time? I don't know, but I would. Or maybe that's just me. >///<
Click to expand...

Please and thank you. That is a nasty surprise, especially when it's sprung on you last minute, or they creep it into the story thinking you won't notice. I'd much rather know about it in the beginning and decline politely, as opposed to having it come out of nowhere. There is no "right" way to roleplay, and I imagine many people like self-inserting, so it's a nice distinction to make.

darkangel76 said:
As for consent tags....people seem to be wavering on them. I'm neither here nor there on it. So, I'd like to hear more voices regarding their thoughts on them.
Click to expand...

I'm with Seren and LD on the consent tags. It would be difficult to decide whether to tag your thread with a one or a few, and I'm willing to bet that the whole list would show up on some people's req threads (I would have the whole list on there). Most request threads aren't idea-specific anyway, and most of them include a range of ideas, including ones that have totally different levels of consent. Individual stories even change of levels of consent as they go on, so I feel like that's more of a kink to be talked about by partners as opposed to having set tags.
 
I have some comments about the proposed tags:

A tag like [MxF] does not indicate whether the person wants to play the M or the F. Similarly, [MxFxF+] does not indicate if they want to play the M , an F which is a part of a group, or multiple Fs. Ideally, we should have a clear indication of both the gender(s) that the person wishes to play, and the desired pairings.

It could be done by having the person's gender always be first in the tag, so [MxF] will be distinct from [FxM] and [MxFxF+] will be distinct from [FxMxF+]; or by splitting the tags into "self" and "looking for", so [MxF] will be split into [Self:M] and [LF:F]

Also, there could be multiple acceptable combinations. The person may want to play any subset of: M, F, Futa, Other or Variable (please add the "Variable" option, it is different from "Any" in that it indicates a character that can/will change their gender in some way).

With regard to voice, I would suggest taking [self-insert] out, as it is not a voice or style. I understand your reasoning above but I doubt that anyone will tag their requests as such. As an aside, self-insertion can go completely undetected. I can fantasize about being my character without my writing partner knowing about it unless I explicitly tell them.

With regard to 2nd-person, the use of it is surprisingly common. Consider the following options (presented past tense):
1. He kissed her
2. I kissed her
3. I kissed you
4. He kissed you

I have encountered all of them, and in fact, one of my writing partners (in an off-site RP) requested that I use #3 (present tense).

Finally, regarding this:
People who prefer to use limited, in my own experiences as an RPer (and I'm talking about RP here, NOT writing a novel...that is a different way of writing), are those who don't particularly care to write side characters or multiple characters in any way. They do not like to flesh them out, get into their heads.
Click to expand...

This is a sweeping generalization that is very unfair to those of us that prefer to prefer to flesh out our side characters through the perception filter of the main ones.

Also, side-characters are not the same as multiple main characters. For example, when writing side characters I am able able to ignore some of my turn-offs and oblige some of my writing partner's kinks that I would not be able to do with my main character. If you want to differentiate between those that write multiple characters and those that have a single main one, I suggest a separate tag.

Another category that I think important, is the "feel" of the story/RP. For example, some people like a "dark" theme while others will shy away from it.
 
Lurker said:
I have some comments about the proposed tags:

A tag like [MxF] does not indicate whether the person wants to play the M or the F. Similarly, [MxFxF+] does not indicate if they want to play the M , an F which is a part of a group, or multiple Fs. Ideally, we should have a clear indication of both the gender(s) that the person wishes to play, and the desired pairings.

It could be done by having the person's gender always be first in the tag, so [MxF] will be distinct from [FxM] and [MxFxF+] will be distinct from [FxMxF+]; or by splitting the tags into "self" and "looking for", so [MxF] will be split into [Self:M] and [LF:F]
Click to expand...

Well the request threads are separated by "Request Threads by Female/Male/Other," so if I place my req thread in the Request Threads by Females sub-forum and tag it as [MxF], I think it would be safe to assume that I am playing the female due to the request thread section it is placed in.

Similarly, there is an actual Group Request Thread section, although I can see how the [MxFxF+] tag might get confusing. I wonder if it would be simpler then to have a tag like [MultiChara], so we know that it's one person playing multiple characters, and also that they DO like playing multiple characters even though they like writing through the perception of their main character.

Lurker said:
Also, there could be multiple acceptable combinations. The person may want to play any subset of: M, F, Futa, Other or Variable (please add the "Variable" option, it is different from "Any" in that it indicates a character that can/will change their gender in some way).
Click to expand...

Wouldn't gender bending throughout the story go more into open-ended kinks though? I don't see its relevance much in a closed set like the ones we're looking for. At least, this is how I'm taking [Variable]. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Lurker said:
With regard to voice, I would suggest taking [self-insert] out, as it is not a voice or style. I understand your reasoning above but I doubt that anyone will tag their requests as such. As an aside, self-insertion can go completely undetected. I can fantasize about being my character without my writing partner knowing about it unless I explicitly tell them.
Click to expand...

This is more for the members who do explicitly like writing as 'themselves' rather than through characters. There have been a fair amount of requests, actually, where the author has stated that they prefer not use characters at all, and that they like the illusion of it being the authors' voices and writing. There's nothing wrong with that, and I think having it as an option for them would make things less confusing.

Lurker said:
Another category that I think important, is the "feel" of the story/RP. For example, some people like a "dark" theme while others will shy away from it.
Click to expand...

Genre, themes, and feel of the story are open tags, and it's already been discussed that open tags will likely be free-entry. People will be able to tag their roleplays and req threads as whatever genre or theme they feel fits.
 
I don't think it's necessary, but that's just me. I don;t have problems matching kinks or writing style when I actually READ request threads.
 
darkangel76 said:
Well, the main reason I included the tenses is because I've come across people who do actually utilize past vs present and...I prefer past. lol! So, I wanted to differentiate that for people since I know it's important to me and figured it might be for others. >.<
Click to expand...

Tenses still seem ok to be, it feels like it's pretty basic stuff. From my part, I would be cool with it, I share in the preference of past tense so I get what you mean. (Then again, I recently started roleplaying with someone who writes in present tense while I write in past tense and it's going swell! xD)
That said I do get that some people might not like it? I suppose this set of tags as a whole might seem a bit much for the very casual roleplayer, who doesn't have such specific preferences, or something? I really don't know and I don't know how to address that. o.o

darkangel76 said:
People who prefer to use limited, in my own experiences as an RPer (and I'm talking about RP here, NOT writing a novel...that is a different way of writing), are those who don't particularly care to write side characters or multiple characters in any way.
Click to expand...

Lurker said:
This is a sweeping generalization that is very unfair to those of us that prefer to prefer to flesh out our side characters through the perception filter of the main ones.
Click to expand...

:/ I really have to agree with Lurker here, this is an unfair generalization. I mostly write in third person limited and have plenty of fun with side characters all the same.
Heck, I've played with people who write omniscient and they cared much less about side characters than me. They, in fact, used this style of writing to instead invite themselves to MY character (as in describing thoughts and feelings and such things that really should be left to me), which made me terribly uncomfortable and annoyed. But even if that's the majority of my experience, I don't automatically assume people who use omniscient will do that - that'd be unfair. o_O

Also, what about people who mix it? What about switching points of view, where does that fall? I just realized I don't even know! Indeed, there's the matter that multiple main characters are different from secondary characters. When it comes to the first I'm likely to keep switching points of view, in the latter they'll be portrayed through the main character's eyes.

I mention this in part because the matter of some sort of tag for multiple characters has been brought up...And this is getting characters mixed up with writing voice. This also applies to the whole self-insert thing.

My point is (or rather, remains), though, that the omniscient/limited part may be a bit much. And if exploration of characters is the concern then it's really unwarranted. o.o

darkangel76 said:
Now, the reason I included self-insert was because you can be in the middle of discussing your plot. Things can be great! (...) Then......they tell you that they want your character to have your traits and likewise their character will have their own. Suddenly.....it's a self-insert and possibly a deal breaker. Wouldn't it have been nice to know this ahead of time? I don't know, but I would. Or maybe that's just me. >///<
Click to expand...

Ariamella said:
Please and thank you. That is a nasty surprise, especially when it's sprung on you last minute, or they creep it into the story thinking you won't notice. I'd much rather know about it in the beginning and decline politely, as opposed to having it come out of nowhere. There is no "right" way to roleplay, and I imagine many people like self-inserting, so it's a nice distinction to make.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I hate this too. Honestly I get uncomfortable when someone uses "I" and "you" as opposed to "my character" and "your character", even only while talking out a roleplay. I've found a lot of people do it just because it's simpler and what not, but it does take a bit of an effort to not immediately assume they'll blur the two and refuse to roleplay on that alone. @.@

Anyway, all that aside, self-insert really is more a character thing than a writing voice or style. Self-Inserters can write in third or first person, any tense. I'm not particularly against making a tag for Self-Insert, I just don't think it belongs with those. o.o

Ariamella said:
I've had this same problem in the past, where people don't like developing other characters besides their main, so I totally agree with the need to differentiate. But I'm wondering whether we should just add a tag like [Multi Character] or something, because not everyone is going to want to know or care about the actual writing perspectives. But most people know what you mean when you say you want to write as or against multiple characters.
Click to expand...

Lurker said:
Also, side-characters are not the same as multiple main characters. For example, when writing side characters I am able able to ignore some of my turn-offs and oblige some of my writing partner's kinks that I would not be able to do with my main character. If you want to differentiate between those that write multiple characters and those that have a single main one, I suggest a separate tag.
Click to expand...

There may be enough concerns as to characters to justify another set of tags. Self insert would work fine here. But...this is a really broad thing with a lot of nuance to put into a closed set of tags. x.x
Are we talking multiple main characters? Side characters?
MxFxF and the like already imply multiple main characters for those specific instances, but then...What, there'd also have to be a tag for multiple pairings. Then there's having more main character who aren't in pairings.
This isn't even getting into side characters...Would we have tags for people who are willing to play side characters, but you know, in the sense of "the waitress getting their order" "hired goon number 8" , because when I talk to people about side characters, a lot of them mean those. Would we have a whole other tag for people who make full fledged secondary characters? What about those who are OKAY with it but rather focus on main characters, or various other levels of preference?

It's just...like I said, it really seems like too broad a thing to put into a set of closed tags. o_O It's one of those things that if you try to cover all options, it's too much, if you make something general, it leaves a lot of room for confusion and misinterpretation.

Ariamella said:
Lurker said:
I have some comments about the proposed tags:

A tag like [MxF] does not indicate whether the person wants to play the M or the F. Similarly, [MxFxF+] does not indicate if they want to play the M , an F which is a part of a group, or multiple Fs. Ideally, we should have a clear indication of both the gender(s) that the person wishes to play, and the desired pairings.

It could be done by having the person's gender always be first in the tag, so [MxF] will be distinct from [FxM] and [MxFxF+] will be distinct from [FxMxF+]; or by splitting the tags into "self" and "looking for", so [MxF] will be split into [Self:M] and [LF:F]
Click to expand...

Well the request threads are separated by "Request Threads by Female/Male/Other," so if I place my req thread in the Request Threads by Females sub-forum and tag it as [MxF], I think it would be safe to assume that I am playing the female due to the request thread section it is placed in.

Similarly, there is an actual Group Request Thread section, although I can see how the [MxFxF+] tag might get confusing. I wonder if it would be simpler then to have a tag like [MultiChara], so we know that it's one person playing multiple characters, and also that they DO like playing multiple characters even though they like writing through the perception of their main character.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as 1x1s go, unless for some reason they change the request thread forum, it's pretty well covered.

Groups...I guess that's something that might be more complicated. o.o I'm not in the group section a lot so I didn't even think of it. When I do think about it I admit what first comes to mind is the more...open types of group RP. But there are probably people looking for, for example, MxFxF (like someone who wishes to play a male character and find two partners to play female characters).

I'm very use to the whole "MxF" and "FxF" and what not and am totally ok with it, but I suppose a thing like what Lurker suggests, like "Looking for: M" "LF: F" "LF: Multiple Males" (and Multiple Futa, Multiple Other, etc) could cover more ground?

I have no idea about [Variable], I think [Other] kind of covers it. But I don't know.

EDIT!
CharmSnake said:
I don't think it's necessary, but that's just me. I don;t have problems matching kinks or writing style when I actually READ request threads.
Click to expand...

See this is the thing! I still don't think there's a need for that many tags aside from the basics, because they'll be applied to actual threads where people will elaborate! You want people to read the threads! Not see a hundred tags and assume they know everything the person wants. o.o
 
At least half the people already list these kind of tags in their RT titles anyways. The ones that don't obviously don't feel the need. Also, most people who list tons of tags in their titles are spammers or instant gratification ADD carpet bombers anyways. Give spammers something else to click and they will just run amok.

As for tagging actual RP threads, nobody reads those when looking for a partner unless they've already checked out a RT and do a post search on the author to read their style.

This is probably only going to make things cluttered and messy.
 
I agree that open tags can cover most of these requests, but the problem with them is that they are, well, open. Different people will use different synonyms to indicate the same things and searching will become difficult. Perhaps it will be better to have a master list of tags for reference.

And speaking of searching, a tagging system is mostly useful for searching rather than filtering. If, for example I am equally comfortable with and without self-insertion, do I tag my RT as such (and lose the chance to play with DA) or leave the tag out and have it not come up in corresponding searches? Does a tag mean "I am looking for this specifically" or "this is one of the many things I like"? And how do I specify a negative tag (as in "people who expect this need not apply")?

I don't expect these questions to be answered in this thread, they are rather points for thought that should eventually be addressed to help people effectively utilize the tag system and manage their expectations.

I find that an F-list helps zero down on specific links, and the time-honored tradition of just searching for keywords, then carefully reading all of the thread and starting a conversation to discuss options and compatibility.

Peace,
Lurker.
 
I like most if not all of these ideas. I'd LOVE to see something like this being brought to BMR (or the new RP site)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom