Technique Naming Standardization

[Don_Anonymus]

@GreenDragon

Whilst I can understand the intentions behind such as system, to be honest I have to question its usefulness.

Likewise. What’s this all about ? I find the current system very understandable and original.

@Rhewin

Let’s look at my arch nemesis WILD. As it is, many members think Wake Induced Lucid Dream (WILD) is a technique. It is not. Let’s look at it. Wake, Induced and Lucid are all adjectives in this case. This is a type of dream, not a technique.

Most definitely not. WILD is written as a form of a dream (full of adjectives), but it is a method as it requires practice and can not be achieved in “normal” circumstances such as DILD.

[size=150]-[/size] My point here is, that some acronyms are the titles of some methods, while others (I think there’s only one: DILD) are types of dreams. If we look at the acronym alone we’ll discover that MILD, WILD, DILD, DEILD (etc) all sound like dream types - adjectives all over the place (induced, lucid). But the differences are the definitions of these acronyms.

MILD: you have to do something to achieve it. - method/tech
WILD: you have to do something to achieve it. - method/tech
DILD: you can’t do something to achieve it - depends on luck/type

[size=150]-[/size] Plus, why the whole argument on DILD - Dream Initiated Lucid Dream or Dream Induced Lucid Dream ? It somehow means the same thing.

to initiate: to cause or facilitate the beginning of; set going;
to induce: to bring about or stimulate the occurrence of;

Anyways, the dream does that: the dream initiates or induces the lucid dream. It’s pretty clear that you don’t do anything to have this happened. Silly thing, but you can easily tell by the title (DILD) that it’s pretty randomly.
Furthermore, anyone knows what it’s about. Why so much “debating” on the acronym !? [size=75](Make another experiment and ask random people to tell you how to achieve a DILD. Bet you’ll get answers such as “It’s pretty random” ?)
[/size]

[size=150]-[/size] Nevertheless these acronyms, once typed and posted have some small lines under them. If you put your mouse over it it’ll say the exact definition plus how to achieve it in a way (example: WILD).

[size=150]-[/size] Finally, you propose a new acronym “mode”:

@Tggtt

Considering that the acronym symbol table has the following elements, each one with a given grammatical category (but not limited to):

• A: assisted; (Technique Verb)
• D: dream; (Achievable Noun)
• F: from; (State sentence word)
• I: induced; (Technique Verb)
• In: initiated; (Adjective)
• L: lucid; (Adjective)
• M: mnemonic; (Noun)
• N: normal; (Adjective)
• S: shared; (Adjective)
• Sl: asleep or sleeping or sleep; (Adjective, Verb or Noun)
• T: technique; (Technique sentence final word)
• To: to; (State sentence word)
• U: upon; (Preposition)
• W: wake or awake or wakening; (Noun or adjective)

The following acronym would be created:
UWILDT.

Now, who will ever remember that !? Or this:

@Tggtt

for Dream Initiated Lucid Dreams, the acronym would be UWIDInLDT

[size=150]-[/size]The actual acronyms are easy to remember, cause they are in a way or another ironical words (adjectives): WILD (it’s a wild or brutal way of entering the dream), MILD (it’s the mild, the steady way of achieving a LD). Others like DEILD, DILD who don’t have a special meaning are still easy to remember: D always stands for dream and L for lucid dream, plus they are really short - as a contrary to your proposed acronyms.

By the arguments I have mentioned above, I don’t mean by all means to cause a flame argument or something of the kind, but I simply expressed my opinion (which I would further sustain) that the actual acronyms and the way they are automatically detected are very well thought and continuously working being fully understandable, thus should not be replaced nor edited (yet).

Good day,
Don Anonymus