Difference between revisions of "Ghyll:Round 3 discussion"
m (So pedantic.) |
Morbus Iff (talk | contribs) (Making formalized Proposed Rule Changes.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | __TOC__ | ||
| + | |||
This page is for discussing Round 3 of Ghyll, currently scheduled to begin January 2006. | This page is for discussing Round 3 of Ghyll, currently scheduled to begin January 2006. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
Are you interested? Would you play? What (rules, date, style, etc.) should change? What makes you unhappy with the current state of play? I've had every intent to keep the Ghyll Lexicon going as long as there are players (and perhaps longer) - in the absence of them, I'd probably move on to other (slower, less regular) products such as a Ghyll game deadtree book ("Poor Ghyllians Almanac" is the most popular choice at the moment, though that, honestly, is years away). Some folks have been debating privately whether to stop playing, and their dissatisfaction partly comes from the quality of phantoms being produced (and thus, needing to be written). What sort of phantoms and entries do you prefer to write? --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:08, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT) | Are you interested? Would you play? What (rules, date, style, etc.) should change? What makes you unhappy with the current state of play? I've had every intent to keep the Ghyll Lexicon going as long as there are players (and perhaps longer) - in the absence of them, I'd probably move on to other (slower, less regular) products such as a Ghyll game deadtree book ("Poor Ghyllians Almanac" is the most popular choice at the moment, though that, honestly, is years away). Some folks have been debating privately whether to stop playing, and their dissatisfaction partly comes from the quality of phantoms being produced (and thus, needing to be written). What sort of phantoms and entries do you prefer to write? --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:08, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT) | ||
| − | + | ==Between Rounds== | |
| + | |||
| + | The following was hammered out during R1-->R2. They'd still apply. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Allow a rest 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=== | ||
| + | * Edit ANY entry for clarity and collection. | ||
| + | * No NEW facts, just revamped to include missing/clarified facts. | ||
| + | * No dibbing on edits; if necc. mad-edits are collaborative. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Proposed Rule Changes== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===No restrictions on 3 entry citations=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | A player should be able to cite three of any entries in one's citations, not necessarily two phantoms and one finished entry as is the case now. We'd still have to abide by the "don't cite yourself" restriction. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | YEA: [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] | ||
| + | <br />NAY: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Writing phantoms first is no longer required=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | One should be able to write any entry under the particular turn letter, not necessarily filling in all the phantoms before creating new entries. (This partially coincides with the next rule as well, but ultimately strives to make the playing experience more enjoyable: there's no love in being forced to write an entry you've no interest in.) --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | YEA: [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] | ||
| + | <br />NAY: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===No entries solely about people, groups, or places=== | ||
| − | + | Ban creating entries, even of currently phantomed entries, that are either people, groups, or places. We have way too many of those types of entries already, and banning them would force people to be more creative. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT) | |
| − | |||
| − | + | YEA: [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] | |
| + | <br />NAY: | ||
| − | + | [[Category:Encyclopedants]] | |
Revision as of 14:00, 16 September 2005
This page is for discussing Round 3 of Ghyll, currently scheduled to begin January 2006.
Should there be a Round 3?
Are you interested? Would you play? What (rules, date, style, etc.) should change? What makes you unhappy with the current state of play? I've had every intent to keep the Ghyll Lexicon going as long as there are players (and perhaps longer) - in the absence of them, I'd probably move on to other (slower, less regular) products such as a Ghyll game deadtree book ("Poor Ghyllians Almanac" is the most popular choice at the moment, though that, honestly, is years away). Some folks have been debating privately whether to stop playing, and their dissatisfaction partly comes from the quality of phantoms being produced (and thus, needing to be written). What sort of phantoms and entries do you prefer to write? --Morbus Iff 09:08, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Between Rounds
The following was hammered out during R1-->R2. They'd still apply.
Allow a rest 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
- Edit ANY entry for clarity and collection.
- No NEW facts, just revamped to include missing/clarified facts.
- No dibbing on edits; if necc. mad-edits are collaborative.
Proposed Rule Changes
No restrictions on 3 entry citations
A player should be able to cite three of any entries in one's citations, not necessarily two phantoms and one finished entry as is the case now. We'd still have to abide by the "don't cite yourself" restriction. --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)
YEA: Sean B. Palmer
NAY:
Writing phantoms first is no longer required
One should be able to write any entry under the particular turn letter, not necessarily filling in all the phantoms before creating new entries. (This partially coincides with the next rule as well, but ultimately strives to make the playing experience more enjoyable: there's no love in being forced to write an entry you've no interest in.) --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)
YEA: Sean B. Palmer
NAY:
No entries solely about people, groups, or places
Ban creating entries, even of currently phantomed entries, that are either people, groups, or places. We have way too many of those types of entries already, and banning them would force people to be more creative. --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)
YEA: Sean B. Palmer
NAY:
