| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Discussion

This version was saved 16 years, 3 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by T.C. Lazarus
on December 22, 2007 at 2:20:35 am
 

Discussion

 

Anything on your mind? Converse Below.

 

 

A Note from EL

 

  • The actual running of this game, like the content, is collaborative. Please, help make it better. It's a goshdarn wiki, afterall. ~EL

 

Contributing Mechanics

Rules Changes Round Up:

  1. An article stub can be "claimed" by signing it starting 1 round before the article is in play.
  2. The originator of a phantom entry can't write it.
  3. Unlimited references to existing (phantom or written) entries are allowed as long as you follow "Don't cite yourself".

 

Holiday Issues with Timing:

  • I will not make the next deadline due to being occupied for the holidays in a house with no internet.  Don't go too far ahead without me.  ~DW

 

New Discussions:

 

  • Citation Clarifications: So, my entry on the Banner-Kresslich device has four citations. Two of them point to articles already established (phantom or not), and two of them point to references that did not exist until I brought them to light. Just so I am clear, is this kosher? ~DW
  • This is my question, too. I'm all for extra citations *within* the article, but when it comes down to the standard citiations across the bottom, when did it become okay for there to be four? (NB I have no problem with any rule squidges *up to this point,* I just would like clarification). ~RS
  • I am in favor of unlimited citations within the articles to previously mentioned articles since inevitably we refer to things that have already been mentioned whether they've been specified or not, and these semantic links are essential for seeing the whole picture and to avoid contradictions. I think that in the interest of the game, it is acceptable to require exactly three citations at the bottom, even though they are not exhaustive. ~LX
  • Agreed. ~RS
  • To feed back, then: ~EL
    • Link in the body of the entry freely as needed, to already written entries or to *already established* phantom entries.
    • As always, create 2 new phantoms. These go in the citation line at the end of the entry
    • End effect: Change "Cite 3" to "Cite as many established entries as you want but cite 2 new phantoms, and put the 2 new ones in the cite line."
    • If this looks good, put it on the tote board. ~EL
    • Programmer nit: there are some edge cases this rule doesn't account for: the initial and terminal condition. I, LX, propose:
      • In the body of any article, cite any number of articles that already appear in the index, written or phantom.
      • Never write an article for a phantom entry you created. (might be a pigeon-hole problem here)
      • Always cite at least three articles for the index.
      • In round A, cite three phantoms.
      • In round B, cite at least two phantoms.
      • In C and successive rounds:
        • Cite at least one established article that you did not write.
        • Cite two new phantom articles until there are no empty slots. (I've broken this rule by only having one; alternately we could do exactly 1 or 2) ~LX
    • I'm fine with LX's first two points, but I think we're getting tripped up on the language side of things.
      • According to the unmodified rules all this is based on, They simply refer to the three citations as "One written, two un-written."
      • This encapsulates both phatom entries that currently exist and ones that have not yet been added.
      • As such, we will eventually hit a point partway through when we will have each letter catagory full with the maximum number of entries, but this rule will still hold.
      • To avoid the pigeon-holing mentioned by LX, I propose that we be mindful of what phantom entries we create, and try not to overload any single catagory with too many phantoms of our own creation.
      • In the same vein, and as the game progresses, start to be mindful of how many phantom articles you create in each of your own: Reference other phantoms not your own.
      • Otherwise, you'll find too many of your own devising that you can't write when you come to them. Or exceed the limit of articles per catagory.
      • In Sum: I think the standard rules of article-end-citiation will work (and am perfectly fine with unlimited citation within the article itself).
      • (Sorry about the excess verbiage, LX is the programmer, I'm the historian, you do the math) ~RS
        • Thanks for carrying that to its logical conclusion LX and RS. I won't bother trying to encapsulate it any futher right now but for posterity's sake if someone wants to sum it up so we can add it to the rules changes that would be nice housekeeping. ~EL
    • I concur with RS and I'd rather not get caught up in rule mongering. I think we've got a good gauge for the mood of the game now, so when the math of the rules calls for a fellow player's soul, I'm willing to overlook transgressions. ~LX
    • All of the articles up have followed (or have been edited to follow) "One written, two un-written."  I think that's easy enough and probably all we need.  ~DW

 

Resolved Discussions:

  • Entry check-out: I don't have a good solution for checking that two players don't try to write on the same entry as the game progresses (of course, citing the same entry is fine). Insight appreciated. ~EL
    • Would suggest correspondence to announce intentions of filling in existing entries. Perhaps messaging at a set time after the due dates? ~RS
    • Would alternately suggest that an article stub can be "claimed" by populating signing it starting -2- 1 round before the article is in play. Eg, "Gordon Fromm" could be claimed at any time during the "E" round. ~JG
    • A fine idea, JG. How would one populate beforehand? Leave a signature? ~RS
      • Sign the page to let your colleagues know that you have some extensive notes on the subject, and that you need some time to present your facts in order. The others should respect your journalistic integrity, no? ~DW
      • That sounds sound to me. ~RS
      • Aye. Though I suggest 1 round lead time (48 hours, ie. next letter) rather than 2 rounds (4 days). Can't call shotgun til you see the car. ~EL
      • Agreed. ~RS
      • Concur. ~LX
      • Damnit! Why didn't I concur! ~JG
    • Looks like we're all in agreement. Happy fact finding, fellows. ~RS
  • Clarification of "Don't cite yourself": I can see a problem down the road of everyone citing to a particularly apt phantom entry and then no one being able to write on it. Therefore I propose the fix: "The originator of a phantom entry can't write it." ~EL
    • Sounds good to me, that way we don't box each other in. ~RS [Bwaaaaaa. Ah bwoke it. Help? ~EL -- Feext! ~JG ]
  • Clarification of "Cite 3": LX brings up an interesting point, are more than three entries kosher, provided that the extra entry is of an established/phantom entry? I admit I've been a hard nose about this before, but I wonder what the rest of you think? ~RS
    • Yeah, In particularly tightly networked parts of our plot, it's really hard to avoid treading on previously mentioned material. Would it be alright to modify the citation rule to a minimum of three citations and a maximum of two new citations (three new in round 1)? Is it alright to mention common "nouns" in the text as citations without the intent to fill them in but rather to provide an anchor for cross reference, perhaps designated with lower-case in the text (but Title Case in the link)? ~LX
      • I would say yes to the cross-references, after all, there's a good chance we'll all reference entries that develop into main points. However, I would still stick to the 3 standard citations. We don't want to get too ramblomatic. ~RS
      • I agree all around. The rationale for rule is to encourage expansion and intertwining at predictable rates, not to act as a cap on the number of absolute citations per article. Adding to rule changes round up.~EL

 

 

Editing Notes

 

The General Consensus: You see a typo or mistake, go ahead and correct it. We've all got each other's backs.

 

  • Fixed a grammatical error in EL's entry to The Abomination Speech. Originally ran "...the defeat of Keilhaard's defeat in..." Now reads "...the defeat of Keilhaard in..." Change it back or as you will, Comite, just thought I'd lend a helping hand ~RS
    • EL has mastered the way of effortless effort. Or at least of effortless editing. ~EL
  • Fixed the formatting of DW's Alarmists entry. Make sure to use the lexicon_entry template to keep everything uniform. ~JG
  • Motion to redact Aernach as wrong rabbit hole. ~JG
    • Seconded. ~RS
    • You'll lose me and by extension any chance of discovering "how deep the rabbit hole goes". Play by the rules or I'm out. ~LX
      • Point taken. It's all our rabbit warren, we can connect tunnels together how we like. Apologies: Let's explore. ~RS
      • Sincerest apologies; I forgot my place, and the bigger idea of the game. ~JG
      • Thank you all. Well played; if we'd wanted to write a story by ourselves we'd have done so. Let's step up to the challenge. ~EL
  • Presumed spelling on Absitolide: "literally" ~LX
    • Many Thanks, feel free to correct any of my grammar mistakes. ~RS

 

Chatter

  • I like the way this is shaping up! So many threads out there, and only a whiff of which will ultimately be drawn together. Bravo gents! ~JG
  • "The Carpathian Incident" seems to be shaping up to be very juicy. Hope some one claims that one quick! ~RS
  • If you guys are all watching the RSS feed (that is excellent) we need not track editing changes manually. I move that editorial changes are fair game in the interest of preserving each other's dignity since they can easily be reverted. ~LX
    • Agreed. Though if correcting of the mistake results in ambiguity, a posting in the "Editing Notes" section of Discussion would still be pertinent, no? ~RS
    • RSS feeds? Hadn't even thought about it! The intarwebs are not strong with this one. ~EL
  • A Request to lay claim to the as-yet-unwritten entry on "The Containment Orders" for next round, anyone object to my asking for it? As it isn't actually a phantom entry yet, do the same protocols apply as above? ~RS
    • I think you're good; claiming is to be used sparingly and only to prevent waste if someone has been thinking on an idea and other people might be eyeing the same thing. Less likely here since it's not really "on the board" yet. As a general comment, though, don't look *too* far ahead, as a lot can change. ~EL
    • Agreed, I wouldn't be asking this if it was a P entry, or some such. ~RS
  • Ooooh. Banner-Kresslich engine! >claps hands in glee< I have just the thing for this! ~EL
  • Forgive my slow grasp of the system - am I correct to assume that given five contributing authors, there will be five subjects per letter group? For instance, as of this edit, three phantom entries exist for the next round, "C". From my understanding, three of the authors must fill in the phantom entries (as long as they didn't originate it), and the other two authors must create new "C" entries, for a total of five "C" entries. Please correct me if I am wrong, and feel free to explain why. Digging through these piles of old notes has begun to take a toll on my cognitive capacity, I fear. ~DW
    • That was my conception, 5 ~EL
    • Then we need to be careful about creating more than five phantom entries for each letter, if we want exactly 5 each. ~RS
    • Right. The trouble I foresaw was that when we reach the later letters, someone would inevitably create a phantom entry for a letter we have already done, and I was not sure who would fill that rogue entry in, and when. ~DW
    • Supposedly we'll take into account how many phantom entries have already been created, and know not to make any more to letters that have already been filled in. ~RS

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.