Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   In Nomine (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   [meta] Standardizing Tags (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=58949)

robkelk 05-25-2009 05:55 PM

[meta] Standardizing Tags
 
They're doing this over on the GURPS forum, and I though it was a good idea... especially since we aren't anywhere near as far into the process as they are.

Tags are useful for finding threads, but only if the tags are consistent - a mishmash of tags only helps Alaemon keep things secret. Thus, I propose a few standardized tags, based on what we've already got:

EDIT: Consolidated list here - keeping the old list as a historical artifact.


The category names from the In Nomine Collection, which should be obvious:
  • artifacts
  • discord
  • roles
  • skills
  • songs
  • weapons
  • tips
  • theories
  • resources (which is a superset of artifacts, roles, skills, songs, attunements, and distinctions)
  • humor

Terms that already have specific meaning in IN:
  • canon for discussion that follows the Rules As Written; heretical for discussion that diverges radically from canon.
  • superiors for any discussion about one or more Superiors. Add a specific Superior's name as a separate tag.
  • word-bound for any discussion about one or more Word-Bound. Add a specific Word-Bound's name as a separate tag.
  • a particular Choir or Band name for discussion of that Choir or Band.
  • attunements for discussion of one or more attunements. Add a specific attunement's name as a separate tag.
  • character for posting characters.
  • setting for posting settings, or links to settings.
  • cdau for matters of Canon Doubt and Uncertainty.

And, finally, meta for discussions (like this one) that are about the forum or the regulars instead of about the game.

Suggestions, additions, deletions?

Rocket Man 05-25-2009 06:06 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
It's a minor thing, but "music" might be a viable tag for threads such as "Music for the Superiors" or "Music for the Choirs/Tunes for the Bands." (Not to mention my own filk, already tagged as "humor.")

Alternatively, there could instead be a "pop culture" tag -- this covers not only the song-related threads, but situations like "Who would you cast in In Nomine: The Movie?" or "Superiors and their TV shows." Those kind of threads seem to pop up with a fair amount of regularity.

robkelk 05-25-2009 06:08 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
I knew I was forgetting something... I'll wait until more folks have had a chance to see the list before I update it, though.

Oh, and canon should be "Setting As Written", not "Rules As Written".

ladyarcana55 05-25-2009 06:40 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
What about tags for topics brought about by people like me, who are still somewhat new to it all and are not sure what falls under what?

robkelk 05-25-2009 07:19 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyarcana55 (Post 795330)
What about tags for topics brought about by people like me, who are still somewhat new to it all and are not sure what falls under what?

Tags aren't required... and anybody can add a tag to a thread. (The person who starts the thread can add more tags than anyone else.)

Rocket Man 05-25-2009 07:38 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Out of curiosity, how would you tag something like my "pronunciation" thread, asking how to properly say the various Choirs and Superiors? Is that "tips," even though I'm seeking advice rather than giving it? Or does it fall under something else?

(Not essential; but I want to make sure I'm understanding the categories correctly. Overall, the list seems to cover most of the bases.)

robkelk 05-25-2009 07:39 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
I'd call it "tips", yes.

And I missed a big one: something for adventures, adventure seeds, and campaigns. Would "adventure", "plot", or something else be better?

Rocket Man 05-25-2009 07:42 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 795341)
I'd call it "tips", yes.

And I missed a big one: something for adventures, adventure seeds, and campaigns. Would "adventure", "plot", or something else be better?

I could flip a coin between the two. "Plot" covers more ground, but "adventure" seems more intuitive, even when it's campaigns being discussed.

ladyarcana55 05-25-2009 07:57 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket Man (Post 795342)
I could flip a coin between the two. "Plot" covers more ground, but "adventure" seems more intuitive, even when it's campaigns being discussed.

I dunno...

When I see "adventure" I think the actual campaign. "Plot" to me covers the beginnings of a potential adventure.

robkelk 05-25-2009 08:03 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Which is why I asked which term would be better... (Have to logoff now; back tomorrow to see what everyone else thinks.)

ISNorden 05-26-2009 12:34 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
The [canon] tag also suggests its opposite, a [heresy] or [house rules] tag: in my campaign, the "heresies" that don't fall under an existing tag might include (1) the existence of Gray Celestials and (2) the "333 = Ethereal Intervention" rule. Do miscellaneous variations like that deserve their own category, in your opinion?

JCD 05-26-2009 06:33 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
On things like Is Norden, I would suggest 'variants' as a tag instead of hereasies. While cute, it might confuse those who aren't familiar with her phraseology, particularly in a religious game.

Rocket Man 05-26-2009 07:42 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ISNorden (Post 795425)
The [canon] tag also suggests its opposite, a [heresy] or [house rules] tag: in my campaign, the "heresies" that don't fall under an existing tag might include (1) the existence of Gray Celestials and (2) the "333 = Ethereal Intervention" rule. Do miscellaneous variations like that deserve their own category, in your opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCD (Post 795483)
On things like Is Norden, I would suggest 'variants' as a tag instead of hereasies. While cute, it might confuse those who aren't familiar with her phraseology, particularly in a religious game.

Already covered (though obviously, it can be discussed):

Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 795310)
[*]canon for discussion that follows the Rules As Written; heretical for discussion that diverges radically from canon.

And while I know there's a tendency to have too many stickies, perhaps the "tags list" should become a permanent one, so that newcomers can easily see it and understand the terms we're using. (IMO, it can replace the outdated sticky for the Asmodeus playtest.)

ladyarcana55 05-26-2009 08:29 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 795352)
Which is why I asked which term would be better...

If I have to choose one, I would go with Adventure.

Plots are assumed to eventually become adventures and, thinking about it now, I am not sure I would want to be that specific. I don't think we need to be. Just to keep things simple, I would go with Adventure

robkelk 05-26-2009 06:41 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JCD (Post 795483)
On things like Is Norden, I would suggest 'variants' as a tag instead of hereasies. While cute, it might confuse those who aren't familiar with her phraseology, particularly in a religious game.

It's the term that's used in the Game Master's Guide for this sort of campaign. I thought it best to follow the source material here...

Compiling the suggestions:
  • Start with the list I posted at the start of this thread.
  • Change canon from "Rules As Written" to "Setting As Written".
  • Add pop culture for pop-culture references - appropriate music, inspirational fiction or artwork, fantasy movie casts, examples of the various character stereotypes, and so on.
  • Add adventure for adventures, adventure seeds, campaigns, plot seeds, and the like.

Anything else?

Edit: Something for Play-by-Post and other methods of playing at a distance, perhaps... but what? I'm drawing a blank on an appropriate term (assuming it's even something useful).

Rocket Man 05-26-2009 06:48 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 795806)

Edit: Something for Play-by-Post and other methods of playing at a distance, perhaps... but what? I'm drawing a blank on an appropriate term (assuming it's even something useful).

How about net play? That would seem to cover most of the alternatives, since I doubt many of us do play-by-snail-mail.

And while our valiant Archangel doesn't descend to give rulings as often as the Mighty Kromm, it might be helpful to have a tag that indicates the rare "official pronouncement." May I suggest "real mccoy"? :)

Methariel 05-27-2009 08:38 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
I think that there are systematic problems at the moment concerning the resources-tag, since at the moment there are other tags proposed which are, essentially, subsets of it (like artifacts or roles).

You could, of course, eliminate the subsets and have everything that is counted as a "resource" in the Core Rulebook (like Relics, Artifacts, Servants, Skills etc.) fall under said tag. It would avoid having too many tags around, though it might be confusing, especially to newcomers. And it could mean too much generalization.

The other way would be to eliminate the resources-tag and add every Resource individually, although this meant that you'd have a whole bunch of tags essentially referring to the same "main theme".

I'd go with the first option since I don't mind the generalization too much and think that the "newbies" will get comfortable with it soon.

And what about capitalizing those tags that are capitalized notions in the system (like Resources, CDaU, Superiors etc.)?

M.

Rocket Man 05-27-2009 08:46 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Methariel (Post 796069)
Well, to avoid too many tags being around, I'd propose that you used Resources for Artifacts and Roles as well, eliminating the latter two from the "tags"-list. And what about capitalizing those tags that are capitalized notions in the system (like Roles, Resources, Superiors etc.)?

M.

Capitalizing tags doesn't work; the system automatically lower-cases them.

As far as the other, I see your point, but I must respectfully disagree. "Resources" is an extremely broad category to use for a tag-search; if I'm searching for a thread on Songs, I don't want to have to wade through a bunch of discussions on skills, vessels, and artifacts to get there.

Still, I may be wrong. I'm sure there may be situations I haven't thought of where a broad tag may be useful.

Methariel 05-27-2009 09:00 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
I agree upon it being useful to know at first sight what a thread is about (although they sometimes tend to deviate heavily here ;) ), so maybe the broad "resources" isn't so good an idea as I thought first.
But then you should be consistent and have tags for all different kinds of resources so that none is left out; I believe we all can cope with the number of it.

A broad "resources"-tag might have its uses if you want to discuss something that affected every resource equally, but the only example I have for this would be the spending of character points on resources or the general character point cost of them. But since this is something that is more concerned with game-mechanics than with the in-game effects of whatever resource, I think it should be labeled with the appropriate tag for game mechanics. (By the way, is there one?)

M.

ladyarcana55 05-27-2009 09:02 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
How about double tagging it in that case? Resources so that we know it's the general category, and the specific type of resource for easier search?

such as...

[Resources-Songs]

[Resources-Relics]

Rocket Man 05-27-2009 02:30 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyarcana55 (Post 796079)
How about double tagging it in that case? Resources so that we know it's the general category, and the specific type of resource for easier search?

such as...

[Resources-Songs]

[Resources-Relics]

Do you mean two tags ("resources, songs) or one tag with two words ("resources-songs")? The latter might be better, since it still leaves four other tags that can be used for further description.

ladyarcana55 05-27-2009 02:57 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket Man (Post 796220)
Do you mean two tags ("resources, songs) or one tag with two words ("resources-songs")? The latter might be better, since it still leaves four other tags that can be used for further description.

The latter. I figured we can see the first general tag and know it's Resources. The second subtag would tell us what kind of resource.

Rocket Man 05-27-2009 03:53 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
One additional suggestion, though it's fairly obvious: the specific name of a Choir or Band for those discussions that principally concern them. But for consistency's sake, we should establish whether the tag is singular (mercurian, calabite, malakite) or plural (mercurians, calabim, malakim).

Which also suggests angel or angels, and demon or demons for stuff that deals with the celestials on one side of the War without referencing a specific Choir or Band,

robkelk 05-27-2009 05:53 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Looking through today's discussion, I think it would be a good idea to drop the resources tag and use just the tags for specific types of resources.

As for singular or plural... I have no opinion either way, except that we should be consistent. What does everyone else want?

ladyarcana55 05-28-2009 10:05 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 796316)
As for singular or plural... I have no opinion either way, except that we should be consistent. What does everyone else want?

I'm not sure it makes a difference. If I see and an angel tag I am going to assume it applies to all angels in general. Same with the specific choirs/bands. It's not like there will be something for one Mercurian, but it will apply to either all Mercurians or Mercurians serving the same Superior.

Rocket Man 05-28-2009 10:19 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyarcana55 (Post 796617)
I'm not sure it makes a difference. If I see and an angel tag I am going to assume it applies to all angels in general. Same with the specific choirs/bands. It's not like there will be something for one Mercurian, but it will apply to either all Mercurians or Mercurians serving the same Superior.

Given your last point, I'd say let's go with plural -- you're right, it would be advice for "all Mercurians" or "all Lilim" (or at least, all of a certain kind, like my Trade Mercurian thread) rather than just one. You're also correct that it doesn't really matter which, but like Rob I think we should be consistent so that someone searching tags has an easier time of it.

Kelly Pedersen 05-28-2009 03:42 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Personally, I think that Choir/Band discussion should be tagged with the singular form of the name. The problem with using the plural is that In Nomine (mostly) uses non-English-standard plurals, which causes confusion - how often have we seen someone talking about Malakites, or Seraphs, when it's technically supposed to be Malakim or Seraphim? The singulars at least have the benefit of being universally agreed on. :-)

robkelk 06-02-2009 06:21 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Going through and tagging my old posts, and realized we need another tag: rites (Theyve been posted often enough, usually by Moe, that they should be listed separately...)

Rocket Man 06-04-2009 07:06 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 799381)
Going through and tagging my old posts, and realized we need another tag: rites (Theyve been posted often enough, usually by Moe, that they should be listed separately...)


It's good to have you looking out for our rites, Rob. ;)

Rocket Man 06-04-2009 07:10 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen (Post 796809)
The problem with using the plural is that In Nomine (mostly) uses non-English-standard plurals, which causes confusion - how often have we seen someone talking about Malakites, or Seraphs, when it's technically supposed to be Malakim or Seraphim? The singulars at least have the benefit of being universally agreed on. :-)

Which is ironic, since in several cases, the singulars are wrong according to real-world linguistics: as I recall, the proper singulars of Ofanim, Elohim and Malakim are Ofan, Eloah and Malak. But then again, game worlds have their own needs -- and as the guy who regularly says "Elohites," I certainly have no claim to linguistic purity. :)

tHEhERETIC 06-04-2009 07:41 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
I know, slightly off topic. Is there a tag standard for the PbP?

robkelk 06-05-2009 09:14 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tHEhERETIC (Post 800568)
I know, slightly off topic. Is there a tag standard for the PbP?

Rocket Man has suggested net play.

Rocket Man 06-22-2009 06:42 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 809551)
Bump, since we can't sticky this thread without a mod.

I just sent an e-mail to the Archangel asking for her assistance. Hopefully I've got the right invocation modifiers. :)

Archangel Beth 06-30-2009 11:43 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Gah, life adds up and adds up and splat, you've got feathers (mine) smeared all over the Windshield of Life.

Looks like a different mod got to it first, actually.

Edit: Want me to delete any "bump" posts that aren't strictly necessary, for a cleaner thread?

Rocket Man 06-30-2009 03:20 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth (Post 813583)
Gah, life adds up and adds up and splat, you've got feathers (mine) smeared all over the Windshield of Life.

Looks like a different mod got to it first, actually.

Edit: Want me to delete any "bump" posts that aren't strictly necessary, for a cleaner thread?

Sounds good, AA. Welcome back!

robkelk 06-30-2009 07:21 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth (Post 813583)
Gah, life adds up and adds up and splat, you've got feathers (mine) smeared all over the Windshield of Life.

Looks like a different mod got to it first, actually.

I had to go make a special request...

Welcome back, BTW! Can I hand back the "rules keeper" baton I've been holding (and trying to use even a tenth as well as you do), or will you be tending to business elsewhere soon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archangel Beth
Edit: Want me to delete any "bump" posts that aren't strictly necessary, for a cleaner thread?

Please do. (There aren't too many of those, actually.)

robkelk 07-17-2009 06:04 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Another one, at the implied request of ladyarcana55: combat

ladyarcana55 07-17-2009 06:21 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Thanks Rob!

I just didn't know where to file that one under...

robkelk 08-05-2009 05:10 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Let's consolidate everything, shall we?

Categories straight out of the Core Rules:
  • angels for discussion of angels. Add a particular Choir name for discussion of that Choir; plurals are prefered.
  • demons for discussion of demons. Add a particular Band name for discussion of that Band; plurals are prefered.
  • superiors for any discussion about one or more Superiors. Add a specific Superior's name as a separate tag.
  • word-bound for any discussion about one or more Word-Bound. Add a specific Word-Bound's name as a separate tag.
  • attunements for discussion of one or more attunements. Add a specific attunement's name as a separate tag.
  • roles for discussion of Roles.
  • skills for discussion of skills.
  • songs for discussion of Songs or posting new Songs.
  • artifacts for discussion of any sort of Artifacts or posting new Artifacts.
  • rites for discussion of Rites or posting new Rites.
  • discord for discussion of Discord or posting new Discord. Add a particular Discord name for discussion of that Discord.
  • ethereals for discussion of ethereals.
  • combat for discussion of the combat rules.
  • weapons for discussion of weapons, be they mundane or artifact.

Categories out of the Game Master's Guide:
  • canon for discussion that follows the Setting As Written.
  • heretical for discussion that diverges radically from canon.
  • setting for posting settings, or links to settings.
  • cdau for matters of Canon Doubt and Uncertainty.

Other categories:
  • adventure for adventures, adventure seeds, campaigns, plot seeds, and the like.
  • character for posting characters.
  • fiction for stories set in a world based on IN or with strong IN influences.
  • net play for Play-by-Post, Play-by-Email, Play-by-IRC, or any other online IN gaming.
  • humor for the less-than-serious threads.
  • pop culture for pop-culture references - appropriate music, inspirational fiction or artwork, fantasy movie casts, examples of the various character stereotypes, and so on.
  • tips for seeking or giving advice.
  • theories for "why?" questions and answers.

Finally, meta for discussion about the forum or the regulars instead of the game.

tHEhERETIC 08-21-2009 12:44 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Looking at the current Crusader's Guilt thread--looking at down-the-line effects of canonical events...tag it theories? canon? Something else like speculation? It isn't playing "what if?" so much as adding canon + canon and getting =result.

Am I making sense at all?

Acolyte 08-21-2009 01:43 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Possibly a "PC background" tag or something like that?

Alternatively, something like "extra depth" which is another way of saying "canon + canon".


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.