I mean no offense when saying this, I wouldn’t classify Tinea as being something with a ton of thought put into it… It’s literally just the Latin approximation for Moth, as you said. It doesn’t really convey anything of meaning. …
Let me explain the reasoning behind the name.
Tinea Ver is short for Tinea Veris Temporis, her chosen name, roughly translating from Latin to moth of spring time.
She was born on March 23rd.
I’ve recently revised Tinea’s backstory and added a new layer onto it, following TG’s common core.
Her reason behind picking this name apart from the obvious birthdate is to protect her true name,
Lomographa Vestaliata Spatio-Feruntur Lucernam.
Lomograpga Vestaliata being a moth species and the rest just space related nonsense that i threw in to extend the name.
To allow identification within human society, moths are eventually required to pick their own legally recognized name. Some regard this as a meaningless formality and will pick at random, while others, seeing it as an opportunity to further exploit their amicable appearance, may choose a name that humans could find cute or amusing, much to the chagrin of the officials that have to approve the requests. https://github.com/tgstation/common_core/blob/master/Species%20of%20the%20Galaxy/Moths/Moths.md
While I genuinely applaud the added work put into the backstory, was all of this prepared in advance before you picked the name? Or was it something you developed after the fact? If you truthfully had all of this written out before selecting the name Tinae, then I’ll retract my comments. If the developed backstory came after the name was decided, then I respectfully maintain my position.
The full name, Tinea Veris Temporis, was added maybe a few months after I created the character,
Her true name was added much later however.
They were not added as a result of the drama surrounding the naming guidelines, seeing as the character is almost a year old now and this is the first time her name has been actually brought up as an “issue”.
This is just simply how I develop my characters,
I make a base, play with it for a bit, and add more and more details as I go.
That’s generally what I figured and will stand by my initial point. Which, for the record, doesn’t dimish the effort put into building the character in post.
To preface, I have no idea what “intellectually dishonest” means and therefor I’m just not going to address this part. Instead, because we are playing the assumption game, I’m just going to assume you don’t like me and are tearing my argument apart without providing positive feedback, as the rest of your reply would suggest.
EDIT: Having just looked up what intellectually dishonest means, I’m afraid I have to accuse you of hypocrisy.
Despite what you may believe, I put an hour into this and cited sources that support my thesis, because, believe it or not, I am displeased with how names are handled on this server and, as I stated in the beginning, I was told something like this would draw attention, and tried to give the server the benefit of the doubt while still attempting to provide an outlook on how the “vocal minority” as you call it think.
Without further ado, let’s begin.
No, this is an actual argument that comes up enough that it can be considered a con to the naming policy. Notice how I said potentially vague, not that they necessarily were. I consider potentially vague to be something that doesn’t require significant mental acrobatics to achieve.
The rules unfortunately do not state that you would use the name. While the rule-as-intended may be so, the rule-as-written makes no such suggestion.
Example of the failings of the administration that you quote later in your post and a contradiction of the “We have to crack down because if we allow one we have to allow them all” argument I see posted in replies to other threads; why focus on “fairly out-there IPC names” when there are plenty of names that would fail this check as is?
Regardless of the culture of origin (which was a late-night blunder on my part and a straw man on yours), the point remains that there’s a culture-lock. The matronyms/nonbinaratronyms specified are not included in the rules. I’m beginning to think you don’t even know your own rules, which, considering I deliberately included them in the opening part of my argument, suggests you didn’t actually get halfway through and skipped to the meat and potatoes to tear it apart.
Fairly small vocal minorities unfortunately make up the majority of the roleplay-focused individuals on the server. If you don’t want fairly small vocal minorities to be vocal I would suggest removing the RP tag, considering the environment for RP on Bee is often MRP at best and bordering LRP at worst. Regardless of the size of the groups arguing against it, this is still a con that the current system has.
As I said previously, regardless of your stance on this specific example, it’s still a con that the current system has.
To quote you here, “Oh come on.”
The difference between IRL humans having the same name and SS13 moths having the same name is that the customization options, so to speak, for real, actual human beings are far greater than that of SS13 moths. I can’t believe this is even an argument against my argument with how outlandish it is. If I can’t make the “what is a word?” argument, there is no way I’m letting you make the “but people IRL have the same names!” argument.
I guarantee you if two people looked, sounded, and were named exactly the same way, there would be extreme difficulty in telling them apart.
Maybe there should be to help facilitate roleplay which is required by rule 1
The difference between Baystation’s rules and Beestation’s rules is that they are extremely loose in the way they can be enforced, as rule 3.6 of Beestation, the quoted subrule about being named appropriately, is
A far cry from the species-by-species requirements Bee currently has. I won’t even make the argument that we should follow a similar laxness because it’s a concept that has been brought up by numerous other people and has gotten the response from admins that you get when you try to play fetch with a cat.
…
I am convinced you have no idea what the guidelines actually are. The guideline very clearly states
There is no mention whatsoever of the other icelandic suffixes. I’m convinced that the way you argue is by insulting other people’s intelligences and “failure or refusal to understand” things. Considering the ways we’ve interacted previously, I am also convinced that you have never actually spoken to another human being.
Another strawman due to my mis-phrasing of the argument I intended to make, which, to be clear, was that other suffixes should be allowed. The fact that I happened to say patronym has nothing to do with the initial argument, which, for some reason, you quoted as flawed without providing any actual flaws, instead opting to provide ad hominem and strawman arguments.
I placed this here to point out the silliness of discrediting people like Truthbringer and Cordswitch Bos who put thought and effort into their characters despite the fact that the guidelines promote names that are, frankly, far worse than the tiny bending of the rules that went on to try to facilitate Cordswitch and Truthbringer.
The issue here is moreso with a failure, or refusal, to understand how a successful and relatable character is written. A good character isn’t an exposition dump, a good character is a character with little quirks and details that set them apart from everyone else’s characters; this is already difficult to do without a per-round canon, as no character would be able to remember details they were told about by another character, and is even more difficult to do with cookie-cutter names.
A roleplay environment should be a snowstorm, not a rainstorm. A snowflake is still unique despite being surrounded by other snowflakes, and the intricacies are subtle; a raindrop is a raindrop, which shares everything except toxicity and size with its neighbor.
Also, to toot my own horn a bit and explain why the changes I proposed are absolutely miniscule, here’s a quote someone sourced from me, in a separate thread I didn’t even interact with to influence.
Small things set me off. Small things set ColonelOrion off. Small things set off those of us who want to roleplay but don’t want to play splurt.
don’t really get the “you made the backstory up after, liar!” attitude. most people do not have backstories. encouraging backstories as parts of names also encourages backstories-in-general and leads to more RP.
less to do with names and more to do with “do you RP or do you not”
-dottir was one of those things that was extremely confusing and caused problems due to lack of clarity. Both being given the greenlight while still being reported and bwoinked.
Seems to show Llol approving it to be changed on the wiki (seems it still isnt)
The Slime guide on the forums states dottir despite the rules.
People have even reported admins for changing people to -dottir
The argument being “Yes people want this but its not official yet” due to it not being listed specifically in the rules
At the end even Fresh muddies the waters. Re-reading the thread a few times makes it sound like Mega made a mistake by not changing the name AWAY from “Pink Scottdottir” which was the Ahelped name but not the original name of the character as they already edited them.
Did they just misunderstand? (did I?) Or did Fresh in that report rule against -dottir?
As if i am reading this correctly. Mega had already edited their name once prior to the Ahelp*
Not even to just be an edgy hater on staff of this server as teasing as that may be, but I do genuinely see very eye to eye with your points. You seem to understand these guidelines and how they would work best better than any staff I’ve met so far
This exact comment is why I posted the guidelines as they stand in the first part of my post. The guidelines are the place where the rules should be, but, as we have just illustrated, aren’t.
This brings to light a greater problem with Bee as a whole, which is that the upkeep that’s been done frankly kinda sucks. Some things are out-of-date and nobody knows what should be followed; we don’t even really have lore for our species and just kinda follow common core informally for some things but violently reject other parts of common core.
I appreciate this, and I do try to hate staff as little as possible. All things considered I think Bee’s admin team is better than a fair few of the teams out there. But, I have anger issues that are sparked by small things, and sometimes I do and say things that shouldn’t be representative of me as a whole.
I’m passionate about free creativity because I use it as a coping mechanism for things that affect me more than I realize; which unfortunately, unfoundedly, makes things relating to free creativity feel like attacks against me personally.
TL;DR I’m a snowflake freak and I get worked up over things I really shouldn’t, as I said in the first naming system complaint I made.
Oh no worries man I fully understand where you come from in regards to the free creativity, with as much time as people spend dedicated to this server I’d be surprised if you were the only person who felt as though these things are attacks against you personally. Don’t worry about having to prove that something doesn’t representive you fully, as long as you highlight that you disagree with yourself there I’d hope that the people who read it have enough brainpower to recognise that. I do think that discussion regarding this naming guidelines needs to happen and be seriously recognised by staff, and tbh you’ve been doing great in my books atleast so thank you bro
personally, I’m not versed in character creation and putting much thought into the behavior, aspect, or other details of a character,
but EPS series IPC mailman gimmick I’ve been doing for a while now with some good results has came to be through a number of happy in-game accidents
EPS lore unrelated to naming guideline
intended to take a break from my other character and learn other roles, such as engineering, took an IPC since I planned to be part of a NT machine learning program and my downsides RPing a human were upsides for IPC, RD Catherine Brown, at that time acting captain, at that time acting HoP, found no one in engineering to assign me for apprenticeship, so they thought I’d be able to figure out cargo, also a vacant department, on my own
when arriving, I couldn’t really figure out anything productive to do, but there was mail, mailman equipment in cargodrobe, figured I’d do that
in days following that is when I started thinking more deeply of how I’d go about it, deciding that it has potential for being an enjoyable gimmick
I really don’t care enough to dislike you. It doesn’t benefit me in any way to act in that regard. Don’t flatter yourself.
That’s rich.
It really isn’t and no it doesn’t. I strongly suspect confirmation bias might be skewing your perspective here. Having dealt with several naming violations and disputes over the last year alone, I can tell you that it rarely comes up as a proper point of contention. In a vast majority of circumstances, where relevant, the player purposefully tries to manipulate the ruling to fit it within their own criteria. It’s exceedingly rare that there’s proper confusion over it. At least in my experience. Truthbringer is the first in a very very long time.
And yes, I do believe that was genuine confusion made worse by a failing on our part to properly clarify and enforce our rules.
You’re correct. I’ll admit my err on that one. It is intended to say the name of any celestial body, and it’s omission is a typographical error. That is a mistake on my part and I’ll fully retract my opposing argument, since I can see how that would be confusing in its current state. Thankfully that’s a pretty easy fix and I appreciate you calling it out.
Missing those cited sources.
Forgive my framing of that initial response. I’m using that terminology as a catch-all for IPC names that don’t fall within our general roleplaying guidelines. Stuff that clearly doesn’t fit. My point was to say that we do challenge players to justify the acronyms when prudent. If they can’t, then the name gets changed or we help workshop it to make it more sensible for our slice of the galaxy. I will concede that this does tend to fall on a combination of discretionary action and admin initiative which can add some level of ambiguity into the equation that’s difficult to avoid. Unfortunately, this is a concession that we’re going to have to make regardless of how the guidelines change or stay the same in the future.
I’m going to skip over the other fallacious counterpoints you tried to make here.
That’s not what a straw-man is. I was attempting to provide greater context in relation to your point. It was not a direct attempt to refute the idea that it was culture locked. Also, correct, they are not presently part of the rules. I never tried to claim that they were, I was simply explaining why we only went with the patronymic suffix since you also targeted the gendering of said suffix.
Trying to focus on that as some form of ‘gotcha’ plays your hand a bit. Especially as you continue on to arrogantly proclaim that I don’t know our rules.
Right… Again, I’m just going to skip over this fallacious ranting.
Only for a very specific individual. You can very easily craft interesting and rich backstories that fall within guidelines.
I guess my turn.
This entire rant seems to miss the point of my argument. You can even sub IRL humans for just in-game humans, or really any other character race. As the saying goes: The name doesn’t make the [character]. The [character] makes the name.
There’s a very clear reason why we don’t have canonical rounds. Unless you have systems built to support perpetual storytelling in that way, things begin to break down pretty hard and pretty fast. Our codebase simply is not designed with that in mind. Ironically, you end up with far worse roleplay and storytelling potential going with your suggestion.
Again, fallacious counter-points. It’s also pretty clear that you didn’t actually read their full rules nor did you seemingly understand the actual depth of their character expectations.
Bay has an entire sub-section of species-by-species requirements where they outline the initial expectations before deferring you to the individual wiki pages for the species.
You’ll note that I said we only support the one suffix but we we’re open (and admittedly have been dragging our feet on this one) to adding more inclusive ones. My point was that you were so fixated on this one specific issue that you failed to consider why it was that way in the first place. My statement was to say, that it comes across to me that you’re either purposefully misrepresenting specific items or are genuinely confused as to the intent of specific portions of the guidelines. It was not meant to be a dig at your intelligence. If anything, I’d prefer confusion since it’d provide a clear path of improvement on how some things are framed without altering the overall current intent.
And again, more fallacious arguments. More ad-hominem. Stuff I’m skipping.
Again, it’s not a strawman. I’m addressing the argument presented to me. I had no reason to believe you made a mistake and was simply responding to what was stated. It was in support of my argument that you seemed genuinely confused about the current wording of the rule or its base intent.
No matter how hard you try, ‘Truthbringer’ isn’t a real word recognized by current lexicons. If the confusion here really is that we need to explicitly state that it needs to be a single ‘real’ word… Then I suppose that’s a modification that can be considered. However, I imagine you’d rebut, “what’s a real word” and we’d go back to arguing baseless semantics instead of simply acknowledging our since clarified intent.
Pain.
And ending it off with yet more fallacious counterpoints and ad-hominem.
Considering the entirety of your argument effectively has been “your argument sucks and we’re keeping the naming rules exactly the way they are except making tiny adjustments to make them stricter,” I guess I’m done wasting brainpower trying to justify change being good.
Further, for someone who calls out people’s “inability” to do certain things, you seem to suffer from an inability to be flexible in your policies.
You also disregarded the entirety of my argument to attack the way I argued it and not the topic I argued, which, is, in fact, a straw man.
I think this part of the arguement is a bit silly. If staff is actively enforcing this, I think letting people remember past shifts within reason if its small and not major like being killed by the syndicate or seeing Nar’Sei summoned, or something along those lines. That’s how IC friends are made and I see no reason not to.
Edit: Slight rephrasing, but I meant ‘selective rememberance’ so to speak. They may not remember Nar’Sei summoning canonically, but maybe a talk at the bar from earlier with someone they would consider a friend another shift.
Exactly, this is how you develop a character. Ideally you start with a fairly blank slate with some quirk or something, and develop them through their experiences.
Instead, we currently have blank slates running around with characters that, on the surface level, are blank slates but actually are just looking for an excuse to exposition dump so they can be unique.
there 
