Shorts = Outergarment

Yatrius

Shorts, or "a bifurcated garment worn by both men and women over their pelvic area, circling the waist, and covering the upper part of the legs, sometimes extending down to knee but not covering the entire length of the leg", have been worn since the 1800 in the attire of young boys, and have grown since then into active clothing or a more informal, comfortable alternative to trousers. Seeing that Lusternia has suits, ties, and top hats, I would think that shorts would also be an acceptable piece of clothing, as there are those who want to appear young, or casual, or athletic. 'Short trousers' is an option, but that term is usually only used to refer to shorts that are a cut version of regular formal trousers. For athletic wear, the term 'shorts' would provide a more accurate mental picture than 'short trousers'.

Additionally, the Tailoring Pants section only includes trousers and kilts, which I think is lacking many garments that people normally wear, like shorts or capris. 

p.s. This thread was made on the request of Fluer. These are my own opinions, though.

Lavinya

There is nothing stopping people from designing a pair of short pants, except perhaps the desire? The garments made readily available are there because people were inspired to design them, you have to remember that many designers also prefer to make most of their creations private.

If you want short pants, design some! If you're clever about your wording, you can design most anything in lusternia. Just let go of the term 'shorts' or 'capri' and think creatively and also within realm of Lusternia ie denim shorts are not appropriate for the period/theme of Lusternia, but I'm sure you could design knee length pants made out of canvas or some heavy-duty material. I imagine you would have better luck doing that than trying to get new patterns made.

Yatrius

I agree that there is nothing stopping one from designing a pair of short pants. In fact, because I am not entirely sure that this suggestion will be implemented, I am designing a pair of 'comfortable and short pink trousers' for Fluer. 

However, I do think that 'pink, comfortable shorts' would be a more accurate image for this article of clothing than 'short trousers'. As I mentioned above, the term 'short trousers usually refers to shorter versions of slacks, while 'shorts' brings to mind more casual and/or athletic wear. In my opinion, adding the pattern of 'shorts' would introduce a new flavor of clothing to Lusternia, a type that does not fit into 'trousers', 'kilts', 'skirts', or 'boxers'.

On a side note, I looked into denim as a material, and found that it was first made in the 1600's, in France. Nowadays, denim is made using only cotton fiber. It also has a rich history in the apparal of laborers and the working class of Europe and America. (Of course, it didn't become a global product until the Gold Rush, but it was present in Europe and America before then, and was worn casually.)  So, in a land of European influence, the more rustic members of Lusternia would not be out of place in denim coveralls.

Fluer

I was going to post something several here, but everything I said sounded stupid so I'm just going to say this:
-It sounds much more fluid to use "shorts" instead of "short trousers" or "hot pants" as I was going to use
-Fluer will run around in his cutesie little panties until shorts are invented in Lusternia
-You will not complain because no matter how hard you try, you can't look away from the stupid-sexy stupidity.
-Shorts. Nuff said.

And I still ended up saying stupid things Dx Oh well.

Synkarin

Fluer said:

I was going to post something several here, but everything I said sounded stupid so I'm just going to say this:
-It sounds much more fluid to use "shorts" instead of "short trousers" or "hot pants" as I was going to use
-Fluer will run around in his cutesie little panties until shorts are invented in Lusternia
-You will not complain because no matter how hard you try, you can't look away from the stupid-sexy stupidity.
-Shorts. Nuff said.

And I still ended up saying stupid things Dx Oh well.

Do the words 'short trousers' or 'hot pant's come up in everyday conversation a lot? I guess I could understand the mudsexxors being annoyed having to remove 'short trouser's ' off their current partner vs 'shorts' but that's got to be one of the first things to go. 

How do you RP a refusal to wear pants until shorts are invented? I know skyclad is totally a thing, but only wearing panties? Whatever floats your boat I suppose. 

Rivius

Lusternia's set in a pretty old-timey kinda world where everyone wears robes, plate and scale. I don't really see shorts and 'hot pants' fitting in amazingly well with that theme. They're really more of a 20th century thing.

Shuyin

My innerworm boxers and tentacle thong panties beg to differ.

Yatrius

Rivius said:

Lusternia's set in a pretty old-timey kinda world where everyone wears robes, plate and scale. I don't really see shorts and 'hot pants' fitting in amazingly well with that theme. They're really more of a 20th century thing.

'Hot pants' aside, I would say that Lusternia has many elements of the 19th and 20th centuries, such as gowns, top hats, and zoot suits. Adding 'shorts' to this, in my opinion, would not be a break in the theme or atmosphere, as 'shorts' would provide an alternative form of male clothing that is not necessarily as immediately formal as 'trousers', nor as foreign (since I am American) as 'kilts', that would allow male characters to appear athletic or casual.

 While some designers will use this new category of 'shorts' to create 'hot pants', 'short shorts', and other things more casual, flirty clothing, that would happen regardless of the clothing, seeing how people designed and got approved a fruit suit, multiple swim suits, more boots with high heels than I can count, and multiple other articles of clothing that don't "fit amazingly well with that theme." 

Simply because it has a possibility of become sexualized, or turned into an article of clothing that doesn't fit into the theme, doesn't mean that the category itself doesn't fit. As I tried to explain in my first post, shorts do have a place in Lusternia as casual and athletic wear, while they do have the possibility of turning extremely formal or lecherous, just like every other type of clothing.

I'm not saying that Lusternia -needs- shorts. I'm saying that shorts would be a nice addition to the selection of clothing options currently in Lusternia, just like sari, togas, kilts, boxers, slips, chemises, and petticoats are. Conceivably, one could adapt 'kilts' from 'skirts', or 'sari' from 'gowns' or 'togas', but should they?

Fluer

Rivius said:

Lusternia's set in a pretty old-timey kinda world where everyone wears robes, plate and scale. I don't really see shorts and 'hot pants' fitting in amazingly well with that theme. They're really more of a 20th century thing.

Thongs and bras and boxers could also be considered at "20th century thing". And if we're getting technical, I'm not sure what century the talking animals are from... Or the Wolf-people... Or the bird-people... Or half of these races.... 

Synkarin said:

Do the words 'short trousers' or 'hot pant's come up in everyday conversation a lot? I guess I could understand the mudsexxors being annoyed having to remove 'short trouser's ' off their current partner vs 'shorts' but that's got to be one of the first things to go. 

How do you RP a refusal to wear pants until shorts are invented? I know skyclad is totally a thing, but only wearing panties? Whatever floats your boat I suppose. 

And to you, It's not just about mudsex. (Unless you mean... MUD sexy ;D) It's about expanding the Tailoring skill and giving Lusternia players a wider range of options with their clothing and clothes-making abilities. It's about expanding the player base! It's about bettering Lusternia. Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't about mudsex, Fluer being adorable, or banana hammocks, it's about freedom >8| *holds up a flag* A vote for shorts is a vote for freedom. Election 2013: 'Sternia

Kio

Have to disagree.  Adding the noun "shorts" to tailoring won't do anything for expanding the player base.  In fact, part of the fun of designing should be coming up with creative ways to make these sorts of things happen.

As for talking animals, races, etc. - they're all firmly ground in the lore of Lusternia.  Part of that lore is the "dated" feel.

Moi

Yatrius said:

 While some designers will use this new category of 'shorts' to create 'hot pants', 'short shorts', and other things more casual, flirty clothing, that would happen regardless of the clothing, seeing how people designed and got approved a fruit suit, multiple swim suits, more boots with high heels than I can count, and multiple other articles of clothing that don't "fit amazingly well with that theme."

Guilty as charged.

Fluer

Kio said:

Have to disagree.  Adding the noun "shorts" to tailoring won't do anything for expanding the player base.  In fact, part of the fun of designing should be coming up with creative ways to make these sorts of things happen.

As for talking animals, races, etc. - they're all firmly ground in the lore of Lusternia.  Part of that lore is the "dated" feel.

Some of us don't have the required amount of imagination and creativity to work with just "trousers" Dx Like me. Just the sound of "trousers" makes me gag. You, you, you- Pants wearer!! YOU, YOU- non-shorts liking person D=< I fart in your general direction.

Kio

Fluer said:

Kio said:

Have to disagree.  Adding the noun "shorts" to tailoring won't do anything for expanding the player base.  In fact, part of the fun of designing should be coming up with creative ways to make these sorts of things happen.

As for talking animals, races, etc. - they're all firmly ground in the lore of Lusternia.  Part of that lore is the "dated" feel.

Some of us don't have the required amount of imagination and creativity to work with just "trousers" Dx Like me. Just the sound of "trousers" makes me gag. You, you, you- Pants wearer!! YOU, YOU- non-shorts liking person D=< I fart in your general direction.

Use this as an opportunity to work on your creativity, then.

Yatrius

Kio said:

Have to disagree.  Adding the noun "shorts" to tailoring won't do anything for expanding the player base.  In fact, part of the fun of designing should be coming up with creative ways to make these sorts of things happen.

As for talking animals, races, etc. - they're all firmly ground in the lore of Lusternia.  Part of that lore is the "dated" feel.

First, let me state that while I started this thread at Fluer's request, I am continuing it because I think this would be a good addition to Lusternia. I don't endorse him, and personally believe that in the particular post that this quote refers to, he is grossly exaggerating the effect that adding the noun 'shorts' to tailoring would entail.  I also believe that he is not entirely serious with that post, and don't believe it should be taken as such.

Practically any noun can be qualified so that it fits within Lusternia, or so that it doesn't. Whatever descriptions we add to these nouns are irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. Whether these shorts become 'hot pink skin-tight bikini shorts' or 'austere and pleated board shorts with a plaid pattern', I'm saying that without the noun 'shorts', the feeling of these items changes, to less accurately portray the designer's intentions. 

When I design, I try to picture the article of clothing in my head and then translate that into adjectives, verbs, and nouns for the examined description. However, most people will only see the appearance or dropped descriptions, unless they are buying or making it. When you look at your friend to see your ensemble, you don't often take the time or have the ability to probe each article of clothing. That's why it is so important to have the relevant noun in the appearance, to help the wearer of that clothing give off the style he or she wishes to, and to give off the air that the designer intended.

On another note, the first rule of designing in the HELP TRADEMASTERS file is "Don't take liberties with the pattern." It then goes on to use the example of a 'shirt' turning into a 'vest. I believe that this would be applicable here, where I don't want to turn 'trousers' into 'shorts'.

Nihta

If the people want shorts, I say give them shorts!

Ushaara

I'm still hoping for 'beret' to be an allowed noun so I can get my peacekeeper beret, rather than having to have 'a beret hat.'

Malayn

<.<  You cannot get away with using just a "beret" they are requiring the word hat in it?   Ignoring the hat isn't strictly period, as we do not always follow those guide lines.

Shorts should just be in pants, they are a length of pant, not their own thing so much.

Yes you can somewhat go around requirements. "short pants" would work, just as you can have a "platter of cookies"!

Yatrius

Malarious said:

...
Shorts should just be in pants, they are a length of pant, not their own thing so much.

Yes you can somewhat go around requirements. "short pants" would work, just as you can have a "platter of cookies"!

Two things. One, we don't have pants, we have 'trousers', which have an entirely different and more English connotation than pants. One would usually not wear 'cargo trousers', or 'sweat trousers'. Instead, we have 'baggy trousers' and 'loose trousers' and 'casual trousers', which still, in my mind, feel like the material used in khaki or formal pants, not the loose cotton pants that we nowadays associate with casual wear. In fact, I would be happy if they just let us use the noun 'pants' in descriptions. It's a category, like 'lingerie' but not an actual pattern.

Secondly, within cooking there are many options to accommodate, not only for different materials and dishes, but also different presentation. After all, 'a platter of cookies' is different than 'a cookie', and a 'stew' is separate from a 'soup. If I wanted to make 'stew', I wouldn't just use 'a thicker soup' or 'soup cooked with many things and served in its own gravy'. Why not for 'cookie', just say 'a chewy, tiny cake'? Because a cookie, even if it is a modified version of a cake, is not a cake. I argue here that, in a similar manner, 'shorts', while they may have stemmed historically from trousers and pants, are not just trousers cut off above the knees. 

They have their own designation of 'shorts', and they must be used to allow Lusternians the ability to properly express the feel and connotations of their clothing. I would be fine if we even allowed 'pants' as a noun, since 'pants' and 'trousers' are as different as 'soup' and 'stew'. In order to best preserve the intentions of the designer, they should be allowed to use whatever noun they want. Barring that, as that would likely not be able to work with the current naming system, the simple addition of 'shorts' would allow people to more accurately express their ideas of casual wear within Lusternia.

Kio

I'm fairly certain Kio had a pair of "loose dancer's pants." I'm not 100% positive if that's the description, but I know I interact with them using the noun 'pants.' (That is, when I wear them, I use WEAR PANTS)

Malayn

Yatrius said:

Malarious said:

...
Shorts should just be in pants, they are a length of pant, not their own thing so much.

Yes you can somewhat go around requirements. "short pants" would work, just as you can have a "platter of cookies"!

Two things. One, we don't have pants, we have 'trousers', which have an entirely different and more English connotation than pants. One would usually not wear 'cargo trousers', or 'sweat trousers'. Instead, we have 'baggy trousers' and 'loose trousers' and 'casual trousers', which still, in my mind, feel like the material used in khaki or formal pants, not the loose cotton pants that we nowadays associate with casual wear. In fact, I would be happy if they just let us use the noun 'pants' in descriptions. It's a category, like 'lingerie' but not an actual pattern.

Secondly, within cooking there are many options to accommodate, not only for different materials and dishes, but also different presentation. After all, 'a platter of cookies' is different than 'a cookie', and a 'stew' is separate from a 'soup. If I wanted to make 'stew', I wouldn't just use 'a thicker soup' or 'soup cooked with many things and served in its own gravy'. Why not for 'cookie', just say 'a chewy, tiny cake'? Because a cookie, even if it is a modified version of a cake, is not a cake. I argue here that, in a similar manner, 'shorts', while they may have stemmed historically from trousers and pants, are not just trousers cut off above the knees. 

They have their own designation of 'shorts', and they must be used to allow Lusternians the ability to properly express the feel and connotations of their clothing. I would be fine if we even allowed 'pants' as a noun, since 'pants' and 'trousers' are as different as 'soup' and 'stew'. In order to best preserve the intentions of the designer, they should be allowed to use whatever noun they want. Barring that, as that would likely not be able to work with the current naming system, the simple addition of 'shorts' would allow people to more accurately express their ideas of casual wear within Lusternia.

AB TAILORING
Pants*              Advanced stitching techniques for creating pants.

What was that now?

Kio

Kio said:

I'm fairly certain Kio had a pair of "loose dancer's pants." I'm not 100% positive if that's the description, but I know I interact with them using the noun 'pants.' (That is, when I wear them, I use WEAR PANTS)

Nope. Trousers. But the noun "pants" works to interact with them.

Lavinya

Item: Trousers  Skill: Tailoring  Type: Pants  Org: Public
Commodities:
Mortal Reviews: Allowed
Layer: NORMAL Bodyparts: legs, waist
IMPORTANT: The main noun MUST use one of these: TROUSERS, PANTS

That means you can call them EITHER trousers or pants.

Yatrius

Lavinya said:

Item: Trousers  Skill: Tailoring  Type: Pants  Org: Public
Commodities:
Mortal Reviews: Allowed
Layer: NORMAL Bodyparts: legs, waist
IMPORTANT: The main noun MUST use one of these: TROUSERS, PANTS

That means you can call them EITHER trousers or pants.

I must apologize. As I do not own a tailoring cartel, nor have I submitted myself a design for review, I did not realize that the noun 'pants' could replace the one of 'trousers'. This oversight is also due to the fact that very few people, at least those who submit to the public domain, use 'pants', though, after actually reading each description, I did find one. Thank you for pointing this out to me, as I did not realize that there was an option of using the word 'pants' in a description. I had previously thought that the word 'pants' was reserved for interacting with the category of 'pants', in the same way 'greatrobes' and 'underwear' are used. I shall have to look further into what the exact nouns people can use for the articles of clothing, as they aren't exactly clear the patterns.

That said, my argument to include the noun 'shorts' still stands.  While I'm glad to have found that we can use pants, I do believe that shorts can provide a new and more accurate feeling to Lusternia. I have said much in my previous posts to support this, so I won't repeat myself any longer if it is not needed. Here, I shall simply say that, since it seems so easy to include the noun 'pants', that the noun 'shorts' could be similarly included in the nomenclature of Lusternia's tailoring.