[SUGGESTION] Criteria for Nex name

These are my preliminary criteria for a new Nex name.

Score for each name starts at 0

+1 for including the first few letters of Xonotic in order
+1 for being pronounceable
+1 for relevance to high-damage single-shot no-spread hitscan gun [In its shortened form]
-1 for having one or two syllables, additional -1 for any more

A name like Xon would receive:
+1 for including the first few letters of Xonotic in order
+1 for being pronounceable
-1 for having one syllable
Totalling to 1

Ptschyyyy would receive:
-2 for having three syllables (Pss-chh-ee)
Totalling to -2

While Xion would receive:
+1 for including the first few letters of Xonotic in order
+1 for being pronounceable
+1 for relevance to high-damage single-shot no-spread hitscan gun ( Xenon-ION )
-1 for having two syllables (Xi-on)
Totalling to 2

Highest scoring 10 will be featured on a poll, comments or suggestions on the criteria?

Xonotic Channeler
Nullifier
Multi-load Magnetizer
Thunder Shooter
Psi Rifle
eclipser
Eagle Eye
Electromagnetic Accelerator Cannon
GR8 Rifle
Rapid Energy Accelerator Pulse Rifle (REAPR)
Rapid Accelerating Pulse Energy Rifle (RAPER)
Null Pointer
X Gun
Xonotic Incinerator
Xonotic Vaporizor
Beam Accelerator
Energy Precision(Percussion?) Rifle (E.P.R)
Gleam Rifle(Gleamer?)
Dead-shot
XE9 (Xonotic Enterprises) Rail Driver
Useless
Sublimation Rifle
dug (depleated uranium gun)
KS-23 "Trepanator" High-Powered Laser Rifle
Nix
LRCE (Long range channeled emitter)
Ptschyyyy
CB Rifle (Concentrated Beam Rifle)
Evaporator
Anti-Matter Cannon
precision laser rifle
Flux Rifle
Xcited Output Needlelauncher
Rail
Portable Antimatter Accerator
Zoom - n' Boom
Koruptor
Corruptor
Neddler
STAB (Sub-Atomic Transportation Anihilating Burster)
particle beam
megalaser
dark matter gun
Annihilator
Nihilator
Nihilus
Annihilus
Biomass Inversion Rifle
Xyex
Viper
Plasma Pulse
Pulse rifle
Scope pulse
Valgrind
Xonotron
Xonotrium Gun
Xenon
Xonic
Xonex
Xonos
The Trevor
Railer
PAR (Particle Accelerator Rifle)
ox
Tic
Xon
Xion
Xonder

PAR (Particle Accelerator Rifle)

BIRDIE (automatically gets a -1)

PAR (Particle Accelerator Rifle)

BIRDIE (automatically gets a -1)

That wasn't very nice of you to make pun of someone's submission.

+1 for including the first few letters of Xonotic in order

But -1 for trying to dupe the Nexuiz and Nex correlation.

Fireball will probably become the Phoenix, that should be enough connection between the title of the game and weapon names.

+1 for including the first few letters of Xonotic in order

But -1 for trying to dupe the Nexuiz and Nex correlation.

Fireball will probably become the Phoenix, that should be enough connection between the title of the game and weapon names.

I disagree, we should resolve this issue by poll.

+1 to keeping the +1 for including the first few letters of Xonotic in order

Keep it: TVR
Remove it: tankmiche

-1 for having one syllable

No, this should be nonlinear.

1 and 2 syllables should have -1 for "compatibility"
3 or more should have -(syllables-1)

Reason is that 2 syllables are not odder than one, it starts getting odd at 3. Also the only 1-syllable name possible is Xon. Even Xion already has two syllables (Xi-on), because ion has two (see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ion ).

These are very strict criteria, it seems to me you are doing the utmost to promote "xion" as a name though nobody seems to like it. My choice would be Valgrind or Null Pointer. Why? Because they sound good, that's why. You can't quantify these things.

i just thought of "Xonder". ( -1: gives some weird results on goo-gel)

... it seems to me you are doing the utmost to promote "xion" as a name though nobody seems to like it. ...

It seems to me that you are doing the utmost to ensure 'xion' is not used as the name, even though some people seem to like it.

... My choice would be Valgrind or Null Pointer. Why? Because they sound good, that's why. You can't quantify these things.

My choice would be Xion or REAPR Why? Because they sound good, that's why. You can't quantify these things.

But seriously, the only reason why we need to create criteria, is because the list of suggested names is greater than the number of active posters.

Not even instant run-off voting would work because of that, so we'll need a set of fair criteria that will be applied equally to all the candidates.

But seriously, the only reason why we need to create criteria, is because the list of suggested names is greater than the number of active posters.

Easy then: every user has a choice for three names, the first receiver 3 points, the second 2 and the third 1 point.
The name with highest number of points gets chosen. No need to suggest 100 names if we're going to choose one anyway.

Not even instant run-off voting would work because of that, so we'll need a set of fair criteria that will be applied equally to all the candidates.

Except that criteria themselves are highly arguable and subjective, so it all comes down to voting anyway, and to personal preferences.

... Easy then: every user has a choice for three names, the first receiver 3 points, the second 2 and the third 1 point.
The name with highest number of points gets chosen. No need to suggest 100 names if we're going to choose one anyway. ...

Any sort of preferential voting of three choices won't work, because there are too many single-letter variations in this list, the winner would have a razor thin lead.

... Except that criteria themselves are highly arguable and subjective, so it all comes down to voting anyway, and to personal preferences. ...

Well, we vote for the criteria, then we vote for the 10 chosen by the criteria.

It worked for the name of this game, for your information.

... Except that criteria themselves are highly arguable and subjective, so it all comes down to voting anyway, and to personal preferences. ...

Well, we vote for the criteria, then we vote for the 10 chosen by the criteria.

You have a point, I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to the "discuss my criteria" tone of the thread.

Back on topic, I don't really agree to the

1. +1 for including the first few letters of Xonotic in order
   Do we need this weapon linked to the name "Xonotic"? Why not another one?
   
2. -1 for having one or two syllables, additional -1 for any more
   Linked to the above: why shorter is better? I think a close-to-reality name would be more effective than an acronym.
   

To be fair, a lot of reality gun names (AK-47, for instance) are acronyms.
However, agree with point 1.

How many firearms have emotive names? Very few. Armies generally go into battle armed with acronyms and numbers. Hence names like reaper, eagle eye, widowmaker aren't a realistic name. An example of this kind of name is the 'redeemer' in UT. That name has only ever worked as it is a super weapon, it just wouldn't work if it was a normal weapon. Duke Nukem 3D had a pistol which was called the ripper in some places but no one ever used that name, it was always the pistol as ripper was in in no way related to what it did.

To be fair, a lot of reality gun names (AK-47, for instance) are acronyms.

Historically there has been the BFG too in games. Would a name like the short ones suggested work with a number? Would making it an abbreviation or acronym help in doing this? XON-300? Xion-20? XYZ-386? S&M-60k?

The number could simply be an energy rating in teraelectronvolts for example, this gives you a complete weaponlike name and a plausible explanation of the principle of the gun.

The numbers are more redundant, in a sense. You know nobody is going to refer to it as the "xon-300" when saying "xon" is just as clear (there is no "xon-301").

... I don't really agree to the ...

• +1 for including the first few letters of Xonotic in order
  Do we need this weapon linked to the name "Xonotic"? Why not another one?

Noted, but you can be sure that this convention is very popular, the number of submissions with 'Xono', in particular.

... (I don't really agree to the) ...

• -1 for having one or two syllables, additional -1 for any more
  Linked to the above: why shorter is better? I think a close-to-reality name would be more effective than an acronym.
  

This is suppose to be a way of quantifying ease of pronunciation, as it's fairly clear that the longer a word becomes, the more differing pronunciations and contractions there will be.

So why are you subtracting a point for one syllable? That's totally pointless.

why giving points for names? thats totally pointless. everyone has a different opinion.

So why are you subtracting a point for one syllable? That's totally pointless.

Why did you post a rhetorical question? That's totally pointless.

But seriously, it was originally a linear deduction, and the point subtraction is maintained for compatibility with the original scores.

And just in the case that someone posts an unpronounceable, but awesome ASCII art to be used as a name.

why giving points for names? thats totally pointless. everyone has a different opinion.

Why bother giving any of the weapons a new name? That's totally pointless, everyone will suggest a different name.

Why did you post a rhetorical question? That's totally pointless.

If it's rhetorical, why are you answering?

But seriously, it was originally a linear deduction, and the point subtraction is maintained for compatibility with the original scores.

Yes, there are quite a lot of scores out there using TVR Name Scoring System V1 ®, so I see why you are reluctant to change the TVRNSS ®.

And just in the case that someone posts an unpronounceable, but awesome ASCII art to be used as a name.

"Let's just sit quietly and consider how ridiculous that statement is."

Why bother giving any of the weapons a new name? That's totally pointless, everyone will suggest a different name.

Not true, I think you know this well. You can't quantify opinion, but when you hear a good name you know it.

Also, why do you think this sort of method was used for "xonotic"?

If it's rhetorical, why are you answering?

If it isn't rhetorical, why are you asking this?

... you are reluctant to change the TVRNSS ®. ...

... No, this should be nonlinear.

1 and 2 syllables should have -1 for "compatibility"
3 or more should have -(syllables-1)

Reason is that 2 syllables are not odder than one, it starts getting odd at 3. ...

And thus it was changed.

And just in the case that someone posts an unpronounceable, but awesome ASCII art to be used as a name.

"Let's just sit quietly and consider how ridiculous that statement is."

"Let's just sit down and try to enjoy some sarcasm"

... You can't quantify opinion, but when you hear a good name you know it. ...

If I know what a good name is, then why can't I describe it?

Also, why do you think this sort of method was used for "xonotic"?

Xonotic is just a variation of Xenotic that didn't have more than a thousand hits on Google Search.

Yet, you apparently have no proof that there was actually a *point system* used for the names.

This has turned into a flame war....

But to add to the fire: I suggest just a simple vote. The Xonotic Core team can make a list of weapon names (10 or 20 max) and add it as a poll thread, hold the poll open for a week or two, have people vote, then close it.

The end.

Yet, you apparently have no proof that there was actually a *point system* used for the names.

Yes, *point* being?

Failing any of the three original criteria for the project name instantly disqualified any submission, but in this case, tolerances have been given, as different names have varying degrees of different strengths.

... This has turned into a flame war.... ...

This too tame to be a flame war, there haven't been any personal attacks.

... The Xonotic Core team can make a list of weapon names ...

They'd still need a criteria to judge by.

Yes, *point* being?
Failing any of the three original criteria for the project name instantly disqualified any submission, but in this case, tolerances have been given, as different names have varying degrees of different strengths.

It worked for the name of this game, for your information.

So basically, this system has absolutely nothing to do with the other system, but let's draw imaginary connections between the two anyway.

They'd still need a criteria to judge by.

Yes, criteria such as "what sounds good" (which cannot be quantified).