dissenting opinions, but flexible


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

dissenting opinions, but flexible

Posted By: MrHen Date: 10/17/06 3:49 p.m.
In Response To: Re: on The Player (Document)

: "The player" is a perfectly valid literary term, just as "the
: narrator" would be for a first-person novel.
While "the narrator" is an appropriate literary term, characters within the book would not (normally) refer to that character as "the narrator".
The player is not a valid literary term. It is a gaming term. People generally do not play books and in a majority of the games out there, no one assumes the player to be a character in the game. The player controls a character in the game. Even most RPGs split the difference between character and player.
Marathon pushes those lines as far as possible, but I figure we can avoid any ambiguities this way.
In a strange sense, the player is more directly comparable to the author of a book than the narrator. They can be the same, but they do not have to be and the distinction is important.
That being said, while I prefer to not use the Player, I do not care all that much. I just want it to be consistent so I can go through and propagate our decision. As of right now, things are a mess because I started cleaning it up with one assumption and then found out there was contention against the Marine and someone wanted it to be Security Officer and so I moved it and now the article for the Player is bad...
I would just like a decision. Is there a way to take a vote? That would make things easier...
: Almost any other name
: you could call him* by would have some element of speculation and
: assumption. Even "the Security Officer" makes the subjective
: assertion that that job was a defining aspect of his character. (Although
: I guess that is how we're first introduced to him, via the M1 manual.)
As far as I know, it is the defining aspect of his character. There are no other defining aspects of his character, which is what makes it so cool (IMO).
Unless we want a completely subjective title (such as the Marine), the Security Officer seems to be the best bet.
: Part of my beef is that an article called "Security officer" sounds
: like it should be about Tau Ceti security officers in general (blue M1
: Bobs in the game). Should there be a "The" added, or is the
: different capitalization enough to make the distinction?
Ah, that makes sense. The wiki has a way to handle collisions like that. The article currently is titled "Security Officer" anyway, so that helps note that this is a proper term.
I would argue against adding "The" because it makes things messier, longer, and is a style change that will have to be kept through the life of the wiki. If we use "The Security Officer" we would have to use "The Player" as well, which does not transform well when discussing multiple players. (Actually, that is a good argument against that term. There can be more than one player, there is only ever one Security Officer.)
If "Security Officer" was kept for the main character, "Security officer (BoB)" or "Security officer (human)" or "Security officer (something)" would denote the other one. I would guess most people would expect an article on the main character when looking up "Security officer".
: * Did we ever decide whether the player had an official gender? That's
: another thing the article should mention.
I like the ambiguities on things like that. It is one of the better advantages of the way Marathon tells a story. My preference would be that the article mention that there was no specific gender or race denoted for the main character.
That is, unless we can find evidence for the gender.
In all of this talking, I realized that the article could simply be called "Main character". That would solve all of the problems. In fact, that is my new favorite. Thoughts?

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Terminology questions MrHen 10/16/06 6:40 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Aaron Sikes 10/16/06 7:01 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Forrest of B.org 10/16/06 7:28 a.m.

accepted MrHen 10/16/06 8:16 a.m.

Re: accepted Document 10/17/06 2:37 p.m.

My own terminology question RyokoTK 10/16/06 3:36 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question MrHen 10/16/06 4:01 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question RyokoTK 10/16/06 4:48 p.m.

perhaps... MrHen 10/16/06 5:18 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question Document 10/17/06 11:51 a.m.

Like Halo? *NM* MrHen 10/17/06 3:30 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question Forrest of B.org 10/16/06 6:19 p.m.

on The Player MrHen 10/16/06 8:11 a.m.

Re: on The Player Document 10/17/06 3:04 p.m.

dissenting opinions, but flexible MrHen 10/17/06 3:49 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 7:07 a.m.

Now we are getting somewhere MrHen 10/18/06 8:55 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Aaron Sikes 10/18/06 9:58 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere RyokoTK 10/18/06 11:56 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere MrHen 10/18/06 1:27 p.m.

whoops, forgot a point MrHen 10/18/06 1:30 p.m.

Re: whoops, forgot a point Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:13 p.m.

That's what I'm saying. RyokoTK 10/18/06 2:39 p.m.

I agree, but come to a different conclusion MrHen 10/18/06 3:41 p.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion RyokoTK 10/18/06 3:54 p.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 4:05 p.m.

this is getting more off-topic... MrHen 10/18/06 4:22 p.m.

Re: this is getting more off-topic... Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 6:31 p.m.

my bad... MrHen 10/19/06 4:48 a.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion MrHen 10/18/06 4:13 p.m.

Re: whoops, forgot a point MrHen 10/18/06 3:26 p.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Document 10/19/06 8:52 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Forrest of B.org 10/19/06 6:52 p.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:01 p.m.

Almost there... MrHen 10/18/06 3:50 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:22 p.m.

now *that* makes sense (final draft?) MrHen 10/18/06 3:53 p.m.

Final Draft? Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 4:13 p.m.

Re: Final Draft? Document 10/18/06 4:27 p.m.

Good. *shakes hands of everyone* MrHen 10/18/06 4:28 p.m.

Re: Good. *shakes hands of everyone* Document 10/19/06 8:33 a.m.

:) Go for it. *NM* MrHen 10/19/06 9:20 a.m.

Re: Good. *shakes hands of everyone* Forrest of B.org 10/19/06 6:55 p.m.

Re: now *that* makes sense (final draft?) Document 10/18/06 4:33 p.m.

Agreed *NM* Document 10/18/06 3:55 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Document 10/24/06 1:47 p.m.

in-universe or out-of-universe? MrHen 10/24/06 4:41 p.m.

Re: on The Player Document 10/24/06 2:08 p.m.

that solves that. ;) *NM* MrHen 10/24/06 4:33 p.m.

Re: Terminology questions treellama 10/16/06 11:21 a.m.

Or Jason Jones? *NM* MrHen 10/16/06 11:27 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Document 10/17/06 11:41 a.m.

*exctend=extend *NM* Document 10/17/06 11:45 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions RyokoTK 10/17/06 12:53 p.m.

Re: Terminology questions MrHen 10/17/06 3:51 p.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: While "the narrator" is an appropriate literary term, characters : within the book would not (normally) refer to that character as "the : narrator". : The player is not a valid literary term. It is a gaming term. People : generally do not play books and in a majority of the games out there, no : one assumes the player to be a character in the game. The player controls : a character in the game. Even most RPGs split the difference between : character and player. : Marathon pushes those lines as far as possible, but I figure we can avoid any : ambiguities this way. : In a strange sense, the player is more directly comparable to the author of a : book than the narrator. They can be the same, but they do not have to be : and the distinction is important. : That being said, while I prefer to not use the Player, I do not care all that : much. I just want it to be consistent so I can go through and propagate : our decision. As of right now, things are a mess because I started : cleaning it up with one assumption and then found out there was contention : against the Marine and someone wanted it to be Security Officer and so I : moved it and now the article for the Player is bad... : I would just like a decision. Is there a way to take a vote? That would make : things easier... : As far as I know, it is the defining aspect of his character. There are no : other defining aspects of his character, which is what makes it so cool : (IMO). : Unless we want a completely subjective title (such as the Marine), the : Security Officer seems to be the best bet. : Ah, that makes sense. The wiki has a way to handle collisions like that. The : article currently is titled "Security Officer" anyway, so that : helps note that this is a proper term. : I would argue against adding "The" because it makes things messier, : longer, and is a style change that will have to be kept through the life : of the wiki. If we use "The Security Officer" we would have to : use "The Player" as well, which does not transform well when : discussing multiple players. (Actually, that is a good argument against : that term. There can be more than one player, there is only ever one : Security Officer.) : If "Security Officer" was kept for the main character, : "Security officer (BoB)" or "Security officer (human)" : or "Security officer (something)" would denote the other one. I : would guess most people would expect an article on the main character when : looking up "Security officer". : I like the ambiguities on things like that. It is one of the better : advantages of the way Marathon tells a story. My preference would be that : the article mention that there was no specific gender or race denoted for : the main character. : That is, unless we can find evidence for the gender. : In all of this talking, I realized that the article could simply be called : "Main character". That would solve all of the problems. In fact, : that is my new favorite. Thoughts?

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Terminology questions	MrHen	10/16/06 6:40 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Aaron Sikes	10/16/06 7:01 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Forrest of B.org	10/16/06 7:28 a.m.
accepted	MrHen	10/16/06 8:16 a.m.
Re: accepted	Document	10/17/06 2:37 p.m.
My own terminology question	RyokoTK	10/16/06 3:36 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	MrHen	10/16/06 4:01 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	RyokoTK	10/16/06 4:48 p.m.
perhaps...	MrHen	10/16/06 5:18 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	Document	10/17/06 11:51 a.m.
Like Halo? NM	MrHen	10/17/06 3:30 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	Forrest of B.org	10/16/06 6:19 p.m.
on The Player	MrHen	10/16/06 8:11 a.m.
Re: on The Player	Document	10/17/06 3:04 p.m.
dissenting opinions, but flexible	MrHen	10/17/06 3:49 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 7:07 a.m.
Now we are getting somewhere	MrHen	10/18/06 8:55 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Aaron Sikes	10/18/06 9:58 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	RyokoTK	10/18/06 11:56 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	MrHen	10/18/06 1:27 p.m.
whoops, forgot a point	MrHen	10/18/06 1:30 p.m.
Re: whoops, forgot a point	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:13 p.m.
That's what I'm saying.	RyokoTK	10/18/06 2:39 p.m.
I agree, but come to a different conclusion	MrHen	10/18/06 3:41 p.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	RyokoTK	10/18/06 3:54 p.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 4:05 p.m.
this is getting more off-topic...	MrHen	10/18/06 4:22 p.m.
Re: this is getting more off-topic...	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 6:31 p.m.
my bad...	MrHen	10/19/06 4:48 a.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	MrHen	10/18/06 4:13 p.m.
Re: whoops, forgot a point	MrHen	10/18/06 3:26 p.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Document	10/19/06 8:52 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Forrest of B.org	10/19/06 6:52 p.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:01 p.m.
Almost there...	MrHen	10/18/06 3:50 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:22 p.m.
now that makes sense (final draft?)	MrHen	10/18/06 3:53 p.m.
Final Draft?	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 4:13 p.m.
Re: Final Draft?	Document	10/18/06 4:27 p.m.
Good. shakes hands of everyone	MrHen	10/18/06 4:28 p.m.
Re: Good. shakes hands of everyone	Document	10/19/06 8:33 a.m.
:) Go for it. NM	MrHen	10/19/06 9:20 a.m.
Re: Good. shakes hands of everyone	Forrest of B.org	10/19/06 6:55 p.m.
Re: now that makes sense (final draft?)	Document	10/18/06 4:33 p.m.
Agreed NM	Document	10/18/06 3:55 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Document	10/24/06 1:47 p.m.
in-universe or out-of-universe?	MrHen	10/24/06 4:41 p.m.
Re: on The Player	Document	10/24/06 2:08 p.m.
that solves that. ;) NM	MrHen	10/24/06 4:33 p.m.
Re: Terminology questions	treellama	10/16/06 11:21 a.m.
Or Jason Jones? NM	MrHen	10/16/06 11:27 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Document	10/17/06 11:41 a.m.
exctend=extend NM*	Document	10/17/06 11:45 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	RyokoTK	10/17/06 12:53 p.m.
Re: Terminology questions	MrHen	10/17/06 3:51 p.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : While "the narrator" is an appropriate literary term, characters : within the book would not (normally) refer to that character as "the : narrator". : The player is not a valid literary term. It is a gaming term. People : generally do not play books and in a majority of the games out there, no : one assumes the player to be a character in the game. The player controls : a character in the game. Even most RPGs split the difference between : character and player. : Marathon pushes those lines as far as possible, but I figure we can avoid any : ambiguities this way. : In a strange sense, the player is more directly comparable to the author of a : book than the narrator. They can be the same, but they do not have to be : and the distinction is important. : That being said, while I prefer to not use the Player, I do not care all that : much. I just want it to be consistent so I can go through and propagate : our decision. As of right now, things are a mess because I started : cleaning it up with one assumption and then found out there was contention : against the Marine and someone wanted it to be Security Officer and so I : moved it and now the article for the Player is bad... : I would just like a decision. Is there a way to take a vote? That would make : things easier... : As far as I know, it is the defining aspect of his character. There are no : other defining aspects of his character, which is what makes it so cool : (IMO). : Unless we want a completely subjective title (such as the Marine), the : Security Officer seems to be the best bet. : Ah, that makes sense. The wiki has a way to handle collisions like that. The : article currently is titled "Security Officer" anyway, so that : helps note that this is a proper term. : I would argue against adding "The" because it makes things messier, : longer, and is a style change that will have to be kept through the life : of the wiki. If we use "The Security Officer" we would have to : use "The Player" as well, which does not transform well when : discussing multiple players. (Actually, that is a good argument against : that term. There can be more than one player, there is only ever one : Security Officer.) : If "Security Officer" was kept for the main character, : "Security officer (BoB)" or "Security officer (human)" : or "Security officer (something)" would denote the other one. I : would guess most people would expect an article on the main character when : looking up "Security officer". : I like the ambiguities on things like that. It is one of the better : advantages of the way Marathon tells a story. My preference would be that : the article mention that there was no specific gender or race denoted for : the main character. : That is, unless we can find evidence for the gender. : In all of this talking, I realized that the article could simply be called : "Main character". That would solve all of the problems. In fact, : that is my new favorite. Thoughts?
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: