Round 2 discussion

From Ghyll
Revision as of 09:23, 23 May 2005 by Morbus Iff (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents


Round 2 begins May 14th. We are currently in mad-edit play, per the "Allow a two week period between rounds" section below. In short, everyone may edit or revise any entry, under the restriction that NO NEW FACTS WILL BE ADDED, merely clarifications and improvements. The Encyclopedants have started Encyclopedants Progress Report 26 for scholars (and players) to leave their final End of Round 1 thoughts.

Do you plan on playing regularly in Round 2?

Yes. --Morbus Iff 14:42, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Ditto. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 16:05, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Of course. --John Cowan 02:32, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Unfortunately, no. The divorce and job change have created too much chaos in my life. I'll finish this round, but I cannot say when I'll be able to return. --Doctor Phineas Crank 10:00, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Sorry to hear that, Doctor Crank. You'll be missed. --John Cowan 10:16, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Sniff, sniff. --Morbus Iff 15:28, 16 Apr 2005 (E

New player, I'll be here! Just like to make it known that from May 14 (start of Round 2) til May 20 (or so) I will more than likely be away from any internet access, so I will likely not have an entry for A for Round 2. --Trousle Undrhil 17:09, 16 Apr 2005 (CST)

I'm new but I definitely want to be in on the next round. --Jonathon Howard 18:09, 20 Apr 2005

I'm in for most of it, seeing as I'll be out of school then. Wish me luck on the job hunt though. --Theophenes 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'd like to play, though I'm not sure I can commit to every turn. But I'd like to express interest. New user. --Lisa B. Underhalh 18:10, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I would love to participate! --Finna Sunderhorn 20:57, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)

One would dearly love to write as much as possible in the upcoming round, yet the uncertainty concerning my future internet access prevents me from making any binding promises. I can, however, truthfully state that if circumstances allow I will most assuredly be a regular contributor. --Lankin the Mad Mage 10:07, 22 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Yes, new user. --Ahpsp 10:45, 22 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'll be happy to join. New user. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 01:32, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Yes, I am very interested in playing this round. Life gets progressively more full, and I can't promise to play every week. But I miss playing Bindlet Ball, and want to know who killed Supetupheraraphes --DrBacchus 11:15, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Yes, I'm new here. I have become very intrigued about this world, and I hope that I am able to produce interesting entries for round 2. In the meantime, I'll try to read as many entries as possible! --Mr. Stokes 14:59, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I would also like to join. It's quite a unique idea. --Ellidyr 19:26, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'm game for Round 2, I've got a lil' over 14 days to read up! --Nikos of Ant 27 Apr 2005

I may be playing for an unknown amount of time during some point in the near or far future of this game. --Somebody 18:46, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)

This is incredibly cool. I'm going to join up in May, and try not to butcher the wiki too badly. --Snafu Bohica 13:03, 29 Apr 2005 (EDT)

This sounds incredible. I will join in May, and hope that my articles will be acceptable. --Cauship 10:47, 3 May 2005 (EDT)

Wow, I'd really like to contribute to this, or at least watch it develop. Hopefully I'll have read up on all the current articles by the time the next round starts. Is there a way to submit drafts of articles for proofreading/suggestions before they become official entries? --Rufian 02:56, 3 May 2005 (EDT)

Generally speaking, yes. Your article isn't "truly" submitted until the end of the turn. So, you could write a first draft on Monday, post it on the site, think about it on Tuesday, come back and edit it on Wednesday, finalize it Thursday, and then plead for a review. I also do a copyediting phase of the previous turn every Monday morning, and I'll usually catch errors then too and write about them in the "Discussion" page of the article itself. These errors are usually pretty small, so there's no problem with retroactively fixing them (or planning to explain them away in a future entry). --Morbus Iff 09:01, 3 May 2005 (EDT)
I just wanted to make sure I have the correct understanding of procedues before Round 2 begins. On Saturday 14 May, I can submit an 'A' article. Being the 'A' turn, it doesn't have to be a pre-existing phantom. The turn finishes on the following Friday, by which time I have to have completed and finalised my 'A' entry. --Urik Orr 04:00, 4 May 2005 (EDT)
Urik: correct. --Morbus Iff 12:02, 13 May 2005 (EDT)
Does that necessarily mean that if it's not an 'A' turn, the entry has to be a pre-existing phantom? --Rufian 18:10, 5 May 2005 (EDT)
I think, though I am as new as you, that Rule #4 (on the Main Page) answers your question, ie. After the first turn, all phantoms for a letter shall be written before new entries are created. If I read this correctly, once Turn 'B' starts we are limited to defining only already existing phantoms, unless and until they are all dibbed out. This is my reading of the rule, if I am wrong, some of you in the know jump in. --Nikos of Ant 19:45, 5 May 2005 (EDT)
Correct. Except for A, all phantoms MUST be defined before any new entries can be. --Morbus Iff 12:02, 13 May 2005 (EDT)
The dates are confusing me, and it would be appreciated if someone could confirm that I'm understanding this correctly. I don't want to begin Round 2 by breaking rules. I have until the end of turn 1 (Friday 20 May) to upload an 'A' entry. On Saturday 21 May, turn 2 begins and I dib a 'B' phantom. I then have until Friday 27 May to write my 'B' entry (which contains two new phantoms). The following day turn 3 begins and I dib a 'C' phantom. And so on. Have I assumed correctly? --Urik Orr 23:02, 5 May 2005 (EDT)
For the most part, yes. Your B entry (and onward), however, has to contain a citation to an existing entry (that you did not write, create, or phantom), AND two phantoms (that you did not create). Only one of those phantoms can be brand new (this "only one can be new" restriction is a new addition for Round 2, created because we had an overabundance of undefined phantoms at the end of Round 1). But, your comments on timing are correct. --Morbus Iff 12:02, 13 May 2005 (EDT)

I've just joined the group; looking forward to participating in an actively working wiki. Any suggestions for orienting ourselves for new participants (shorter than reading everything on the whole site)? --Brother Arfrus 10:52, 3 May 2005 (EDT)

Welp, hmm. You could read through the Encyclopedants pages to get a partial overview of the early rounds, as well as a global metaview of timelines, etc. But there's really no Overview or shortcut to Ghyll just yet. You could check out the Round 1 Spotlights too, to get an idea of what I considered the "best" entries for a particular turn. --Morbus Iff 11:20, 3 May 2005 (EDT)
Thank you. That helps get my research started. I found the Ghyll Geography also to be useful. As a cloistered researcher with limited resources, I hope to concentrate on just a few topics of interest. --Brother Arfrus 10:38, 4 May 2005 (EDT)

I have a couple of questions about the geography of Ghyll. The Geography sections clearly states that it's frozen and that no new areas can be added. Does this mean that we can't make any new places? Like towns and hamlets and such? Or is it only large features like mountains and countries which can't be added at this point? Where's the limit? Secondly, said section also states that the geography might get un-frozen in the second round. Any news on this? --Lankin the Mad Mage 21:39, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

I, too, have some questions about geography. I actually posted my questions on the FAQ page, but I would love an answer either on that page or on this one. --Nikos of Ant 09:25, 7 May 2005 (EDT)
Geography will be unfrozen for Round 2 (and I'll be updating that page shortly to reflect this). I would, however, like to state the blatantly understood: be kind. Don't create an entry that defines fifty new places. If you're gonna create a place, make sure it's in relation to something else (with measurements, if possible) such that it can actually go on the map (of course, if your entry hinges on the place being mysterious, lost, undiscoverable, destroyed, ruined, etc., you can skip this suggestion). Try to remain, to some degree, "local" - don't define a place that is way over on "the other side of the world", such that it creates a "pocket" of entries that don't easily (or reasonably) relate to the rest of known Ghyll. At this point, the Xurient is the farthest away from known Ghyll, but there's plenty of "local" unexplored regions to the north (the Sarfelogian Mountains), south (the cactus forests), west (the distance between Mount Yurch) and east (the distance between the Xurient.) --Morbus Iff 12:02, 13 May 2005 (EDT)

Due to finals week, I will not be able to contribute anything for the letter A. Hopefully, I will be able to contribute next week. --Finna Sunderhorn 11:31, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

Between Rounds

A few people have noticed the natural tendency of a Lexicon to have its earliest entries "outdated" by the time you get into the mid- or end- game. For instance, we know a bit more about Ghyllian reproduction, a little more about this, and a lot more about that. An in-game solution proposed by Morbus Iff seemed to also be plausible out of game. Basically, since Round 1 is a "formalized" attempt by the Encyclopedants to create an Encyclopedia, Round 1 could be considered a "First Edition Draft" of the Encyclopedia. Round 2, on the other hand, would be a "Second Edition Draft" and so on. Thus, the time between Round 1 and Round 2 would be used to edit, fix and enhance any and all previous entries.

Allow a two week period between rounds

  • Write up in-game "End of Year" reports.
  • Finish up any discussions on this page.
  • Take a break and collect your thoughts.
  • Mad-edit anything that needs to.

Allow scholars to revamp previous round's entries

  • One edit per turn to ANY entry, in addition to regular round rules.
  • No NEW facts, just revamped to include missing/clarified facts.
  • No dibbing on edits; if necc. mad-edits are collaborative.

Rule Changes

Of your two phantom citations, only one can be new

This is important to keep down the proliferation of phantoms;
at the end of Round 1, we have almost as many phantoms as articles.

Rule of A: Scholars may always write new, non-phantom, turn A entries

The goal is to ensure that every round has a "fresh start" with new branches of story. By not requiring a phantom to be defined for letter 'A' (regardless of leftover phantoms from previous rounds), we're always "starting" fresh with new, as opposed to already established, content. Of course, Truth from previous rounds must still be accepted as such, and existing 'A' phantoms may be dibbed if a player so decides.

So, in other words, if we are starting a new Round and there are 5 phantoms for A but I don't like any of those phantoms, I can create a new entry for A and start from there? Or would this apply to any turn in a round in which there are no phantoms in existence for that turn? No C phantoms on turn 3, for example. --Trousle Undrhil 01:10, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Yes, both. There is already a rule that, if there are no valid phantoms remaining for a letter, a scholar writes a brand new entry. This rule just gives turn A, and only turn A, more power than usual, solely because it is the start of a new Round. --Morbus Iff 08:50, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Round 2 Themes

The original Lexicon post suggests there should be a theme and goal to the entries being written. Since Ghyll, as a world, didn't exist, there was no theme to Round 1: it was ultimately "make a world". Scholarly consensus established that Round 2 will have no theme either, but the themes formerly proposed here have been transplanted to User:MorbusIff/themes.

Personal tools