https://www.disobey.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Bast+ResNovaeDisobiki - User contributions [en]2026-04-15T23:47:36ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.33.0https://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Cranee_Historical_Society&diff=28294Ghyll talk:Cranee Historical Society2004-09-18T13:53:31Z<p>Bast ResNovae: a modest proposal, no baby eating required</p>
<hr />
<div>I've decided to work on some of the details of distances of Ghyll, using the facts that one nanit is "small" according to [[Bindlet Ball]], and 18 nanits seems quite large as the basis for Ghyll distance terminology. I feel that [[sugro-nanit]] is really quite an irritating term, but I've used it and made it equivalent to a mile to give it some more substance. Cranee is to be between the [[Evesque Valley]] and Folktown, eighteen miles from Folktown and twenty five from the [[Evesque Valley]]. I'd say that a nanit could well be 20cm; that'd make the boxes 3.6m across, which seems about right for huge magnetic whatsits. A mile [http://www.google.com/search?q=one+mile+in+centimetres&oe=UTF-8 is 160934.4cm] according to Google, so that means that there are 8046.72 nanits to a mile. Okay! That means that there are 144840.96 nanits between Cranee and Folktown, and 201168 nanits between Cranee and the Evesque Valley. To tie it back into earthly distances, I can say that Cranee -> Folktown is 18 * 5280 "paces", and then hope that Ghyllians are roughly the same size as humans--and I think that they should be, but I guess there's no way of knowing. Everything in the Ghyll universe could be different, so it's a case of making all the relative distances work. This section should go in the Talk page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 03:44, 18 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==A Call To Order==<br />
Ladies and not-so-ladies: this is, in some respects, a protest and parody entry. As I've already confided to Morbus, I'm slightly worried about the direction that Ghyll is taking on many levels, and I am here proposing a reform. The main problem is that we simply do not have enough reading and discussion time in contrast to the writing time. We have ten to twenty entries per turn: we've had eighteen this week, and it's simply too much too keep up with. Keeping up with the entries themselves isn't even the biggest problem, it's that it leads to a proliferation of entries that are written in complete isolation from one another.<br />
<br />
I propose that instead of having a week of writing time and zero contemplation and discussion time, we should try to balance it out somewhat more. Perhaps every five turns, we could have a period of two weeks where no one is allowed to contribute to the canon, and we have to discuss what's been going on in the wiki, what we hope for the characters, where we want the game to develop. There is simply ''no'' out-of-game discussion about the game at the moment, whereas I think that ought to be its principal feature! I think this comes from us wanting to keep our ideas to ourselves so that we can surprise people when we publish them, but I also think it comes from us not planning our entries out in advance, ot wanting to seek others' input, and often from just rushing the entries full-stop. We had three entries in the half an hour before the turn's deadline, and that's silly: as Morbus suggests, we ought to place a moratorium on entries before the deadline, but I think that it should be quite a bit longer than Morbus is probably thinking. A week may be too short a time anyway, so I'm thinking about having five days to soak up the entries and discuss future directions, and then five days in which to write all our dibs. So the process will be day 1: dib; days 1-5: discuss and plan; days 6-10: write entries. That we had three entries in the last half an hour of the turn seems to indicate that a week is simply not long enough for people to catch up with Ghyll (and I must admit that this is partly spurred on by me having some commitments over the next week or so that's going to make it difficult to play Ghyll), though the period that we had for turn A seems too long.<br />
<br />
Cranee was written quite ''extempore'', but when you look at the structure it's quite obvious that the top section is pedantry gone mad (the distance measures) and the rest is whimsy. I'm kinda irritated that people haven't been able to look into the easter eggs and puns etc. that I hid in my previous two entries, and I decided I wasn't going to waste the time on this entry doing the same--but I've also had not much time to check out the puns and cool references in other people's entries. Perhaps each time an entry is written up, people ought to discuss all the references in the Talk page instead of just leaving them all hidden. I don't think that just banging out entries every week can really be thought of as all that playing Ghyll consists of: you have to care about creating a large and consistent lexicon here, and I'm not sure what percentage of the players really feel that. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 03:44, 18 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Just What is the Intent of Play?==<br />
I hate to be a dork, but I'm not "feeling" the idea of a discussion period - it seems to change the focus of the game away from "let's challenge myself by letting others pervert my ideas" to "let's put ideas on the table and collectively write them together". If that's the direction Neel wanted to take in his development of "Lexicon the RPG", then he wouldn't need to stress the facts that "you are cranky, opinionated, prejudiced, and eccentric", and that "you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation". If the intent of the OOG discussions is for everyone to agree on what the direction and goals are, and then to write fiction supporting those goals, we're removing the need for scholars to be cranky and prejudiced (they're just documenting what everyone agrees on), and also arguments and introduction (scholars don't need to argue because the OOG player discussions have already done that, and new facts don't need to be introduced because they've already been agreed upon in the discussion).<br />
<br />
I think that "Lexicon the RPG", the name, and specifically, "the RPG" is telling. If you've never played a game of Dungeons & Dragons or anything similar, then you don't know about the challenge between the players and the game master. The game master has a story inside his head, and it contains plots, characters, and locations. The players are playing in ''his'' world, but the plot is now dictated by ''their'' actions. It is ''very'' common for the GM to make this wonderful plot line, and then to have the players accidentally (unbeknownst to their knowledge) kill a crucial figure, thus destroying the intricate events the GM had planned. ''This is the challenge, and fun, of roleplaying games.'' Sure, game masters can say "uh, don't do that", but that is generally vilified: players don't want to play a game ''on the rails'', where their actions are constrained to set points and results - they want the plot to revolve around them, for they are the reason the game is being played.<br />
<br />
In "Lexicon the RPG", we are all players, but we are also all game masters. We game master the entries we write, presumably with a world view, but then the other players pervert our ideas with their own course of action. As game masters, we're constrained by the rules to ''accept'' what the players do with our ideas - as players, we're vindicated knowing we're not ''on the rails''.<br />
<br />
With all that said, I do agree, however, that the three entries immediately before midnight is a very bad and slippery slope: going back to the RPG, it'd be like the game master inventing his plot line for the night's gaming session five minutes before it happens. Players ''will'' notice that you've come unprepared - the game stops being fun, and the effort stops being made.<br />
<br />
I do think, however, that ''justification'' could be a decent advocate of ''contemplation''. One of my favorite pleasures is listening to DVD commentaries, or to read "developer notes" or "change logs" in games or computer software. They give me an extra level of enjoyment over what I own, read, or use every day. What if, for example, dibbing and writing occurs from Saturday to Thursday, and Friday is spent writing justifications for your entries in the Talk: namespace? These justifications wouldn't be plot revealing... I wouldn't explain why I suggested that Windsor Creame didn't murder Daniel Mboya, but I could reveal that the Folktown Records newspaper was inspired by children's magazines like Ranger Rick or Highlights, or that I really wanted a grey area between "wait, he worked for the paper for 12 years, and he flips out to the point of murder?!" --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:30, 18 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I've sent Neel an email pointing him to this page. Perhaps he'll weigh in too. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:39, 18 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What about a mandatory OOG discussion note for each entry where each aythor explains any hidden subtext/gives a brief explanation of why they wrote how they did? Also, I agree a week might be too short once the enthusiasm wears off- what about requiring a draft entry at the end of the week, then a week for exploring the other new entries, looking for new opportunities to connect entries, asking questions, making suggestions, and refining your own work? --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 09:53, 18 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Bavarian_Creame&diff=28043Ghyll talk:Bavarian Creame2004-09-18T03:58:14Z<p>Bast ResNovae: I like the fix, but I also read supermarket tabloids</p>
<hr />
<div>==Out-Of-Game Discussion==<br />
<br />
In figuring out the math for this, there are a couple of things that come to light, so I thought I'd blurb them here, for the sake of everyone else. It appears there is a crucial continuity error here, but hopefully multiple eyeballs will help 'em out. Everything is based on two core facts:<br />
<br />
# Siam Sinch married Gabson Foye in -11 EC (in [[Bethany Mboya]]).<br />
# Siam Sinch was 20 years old when she married (as per [[Bavarian Creame]]).<br />
<br />
Based on all of this, we can work backwards and discover the dates of her previous marriages, as well as when she was the mayor of Folktown. Siam must have been born in -31 EC, and thus, Bavarian married Bartholemew Sinch in -31. She had been divorced from Smallwood for two years (-33 EC), whom she had married for 12 years (-45 EC). She divorced him two years after becoming the Folktown Mayor (-35 EC) - she was 24 years old.<br />
<br />
Alright, now, Bavarian had an older daughter named Niala. Niala is older then Siam. If Siam was 20 when she married (-11 EC), then she would have been 23 when Bavarian marries Windsor Creame (-8 EC). That would make Niala ''at least 24'', since she's older. Now, Niala was going out with the "much younger" son of Bavarian's "future husband", Windsor. From this, we can probably infer that Daniel Mboya was anywhere from 10 to 14 - otherwise, he'd have no business acting all kid-like when he was at the Folktown Record's offices in [[Agony uncle]] (which, at the time of writing, the only other known kid was Morphous Ibb, who wrote to the FR when he was 11).<br />
<br />
Here's the problem. The death in [[Agony uncle]] took place in 0 EC, because of the blurb from ''Bavarian Creame, Windsor's wife of seven years''. That means Daniel would have been 17 to 21 when he was murdered, and he would have been far too old to be asking those child like questions in the FR offices. Thoughts? --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 23:32, 17 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Actually, the very simple fix for this would be to make Daniel 5 to 7 in -8 EC, when Bavarian was married to Windsor. This would make Niala literally robbing the cradle (she'd be 24 to Daniel's 5 to 7), and would make Daniel sufficently innocent at the age of his death (roughly 11 to 14). Does this sound amicable? --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 23:39, 17 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sound suitably scandalous to me.--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 23:58, 17 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22897Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-18T03:53:11Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>Bobby "Robert" Shwarmph putatively edits "[[Aliens Everywhere]]" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22 {{EC}}, after he apparently went into seclusion for reasons known only to him at the time of writing. Research reveals all of Shwarmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by associate and confidante "Easy" Lizzard after that date. [[Folktown Records]] #519 reported he may--or may not--have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident, suffering searing burns across his throat which left him scarred and speechless. The article also hints he may have been the victim of foul play. However, our interviews with former associates indicate Shwarmph was mostly driven into plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during his factfinding trip to the [[Alezan]] ruins near his home.<br />
<br />
Shwarmph has been accused of using his popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against his political adversaries, but not even his most strident critics seem to remember what evidence they had against him on this point. Few of them remain in office or retain any semblance of their former importance, so their names probably aren't worth mentioning here. He is a member of the [[Brothers of the Lantern]], and published a paper in that organization's scholarly journal as a student in -14 {{EC}}. In that text, he rejected [[AuroAnthropology]] as a doctrinal heresy and held that light is the product of electromagnetic radiation, and that it has little or no bearing on human behavior. He also rejected the concept that social behavior could be studied by scientific investigations. It is not known if this conservative paradigm is actually held by other members of the Brotherhood- or even Shwarmph himself, given this and some of his magazine's own conspiracy theories may be subversive efforts at social engineering.<br />
<br />
Or, as his own magazine frequently posits, "is that what they ''want'' you to think?"<br />
<br />
Shwarmph is said to be a veteran of the [[Conflict That Is Not Happening]], serving as a platoon leader in the [[Tarkherk Corps]]. This is widely accepted as fact even though it has proved impossible to verify since the relevent authorities have refused to confirm or deny that the conflict is taking place. <br />
<br />
Shwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by either actress Izadora Gutschtup, or an [[Alezanians|Alezanian]]- depending on the rumormonger. Records involving the younger Shwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts, but he remains a powerful figure in certain academic circles.<br />
<br />
The reclusive Bobby Shwarmph is scheduled to produce an anthology called "Aliens, Anywhere?" with the Academy of Conspiracy Theologists press in the fall of 0 {{EC}}. Drafts of the preface released to a select figures of note for comment are highly sought after among the academics, collectors, and the press- but access has been tightly controlled by Shwarmph. One purported draft, with forged "certificate of authenticity," was recently debunked by a sharp-eyed scholar at the Aerensplay Bazaar. The vendor was reportedly asking 4,900 Quezloos for the faked [[luminous manuscript]].<br />
<br />
'''Citations''': [[Alezan]], [[luminous manuscript]], [[Tarkherk Corps]].<br />
<br />
--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]], 01:02, 12 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[[Category:People]]</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22894Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-18T00:33:40Z<p>Bast ResNovae: Clarifies minor point re: Shwarmph's military records, and any vague resemlance to any popular issue in our current reality is totally a coincidence, and not an earth parody, I _swear_!</p>
<hr />
<div>Bobby "Robert" Schwarmph putatively edits "[[Aliens Everywhere]]" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22 {{EC}}, after he apparently went into seclusion for reasons known only to him at the time of writing. Research reveals all of Schwarmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by associate and confidante "Easy" Lizzard after that date. Folktown Records #519 reported he may--or may not--have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident, suffering searing burns across his throat which left him scarred and speechless. The article also hints he may have been the victim of foul play. However, our interviews with former associates indicate Schwarmph was mostly driven into plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during his factfinding trip to the [[Alezan]] ruins near his home.<br />
<br />
Schwarmph has been accused of using his popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against his political adversaries, but not even his most strident critics seem to remember what evidence they had against him on this point. Few of them remain in office or retain any semblance of their former importance, so their names probably aren't worth mentioning here. He is a member of the [[Brothers of the Lantern]], and published a paper in that organization's scholarly journal as a student in -14 {{EC}}. In that text, he rejected [[AuroAnthropology]] as a doctrinal heresy and held that light is the product of electromagnetic radiation that has little or no bearing on human behavior. He also rejected the concept that social behavior could be studied by scientific investigations. It is not known if this conservative paradigm is actually upheld by other members of the Brotherhood- or even Shwarmph himself, given this and some of his magazine's own conspiracy theoried may be subversive efforts at social engineering.<br />
<br />
Or, as his own magazine frequently posits, "is that what they ''want'' you to think?"<br />
<br />
Schwarmph is said to be a veteran of the [[Conflict That Is Not Happening]], serving as a platoon leader in the [[Tarkherk Corps]]. This is widely accepted as fact even though it has proved impossible to verify since the relevent authorities have refused to confirm or deny that the conflict is taking place. <br />
<br />
Shwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by either actress Izadora Gutschtup, or an [[Alezanians|Alezanian]]- depending on the rumormonger. Records involving the younger Shwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts, but he remains a powerful figure in certain academic circles.<br />
<br />
The reclusive Bobby Shwarmph is scheduled to produce an anthology called "Aliens, Anywhere?" with the Academy of Conspiracy Theologists press in the fall of 0 {{EC}}. Drafts of the preface released to a select figures of note for comment are highly sought after among the academics, collectors, and the press- but access has been tightly controlled by Shwarmph. One purported draft, with forged "certificate of authenticity," was recently debunked by a sharp-eyed scholar at the Aerensplay Bazaar. The vendor was reportedly asking 4,900 Quezloos for the faked [[luminous manuscript]].<br />
<br />
'''Citations''': [[Alezan]], [[luminous manuscript]], [[Tarkherk Corps]].<br />
<br />
--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]], 01:02, 12 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[[Category:People]]</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bethany_Mboya&diff=22789Ghyll:Bethany Mboya2004-09-15T12:27:43Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>The story of Bethany Mboya is perhaps best conveyed following the order in which facts became known, otherwise it is hard to convey the serious impact she had upon the political, religious, scholarly, and artistic life including, above all, the impact various sensations had upon the Housewives And Nannies' Debatory Banter Association of Ghyll, who have still not recovered from some of the later revelations.<br />
<br />
The birth date of Bethany was never clear, but upon her entering the public eye (so to speak) in -11 {{EC}}, she was apparently 19 years of age. There being no record of her before than, her name was assumed to be a pseudonym; while there are now many girls called Bethany between the ages of 2 and 11, and though the name has again returned to popularity this year (recorded by the Bureau of Numbing Research as the 4th most popular name for girl babies), it sounded quite exotic to the ear of her contemporaries.<br />
<br />
Bethany is, of course, a feminine version of the common name Bedanant; Mboya is so common as to be almost a default when creating a pseudonym on the spot. Of course, since using a pseudonym is common in Ghyll (all the more so amongst those who move in artistic circles), she immediately impacted that the use of a pseudonym was not remarkable save to add to the mystique surrounding her past.<br />
<br />
At any rate, it was at the age of 19 that she was rumoured to be the romantic partner of the artist Siam Sinch and to be the inspiration for much of her work, both in the rôle of muse and as an intellectual force behind Sinch’s still rather daring ideological views on the use of light in artistic expression.<br />
<br />
Sinch denied all such rumours, or any knowledge of anyone by the name Bethany Mboya. However, she was at that point entering the final tri-menth of her [[betrothal march]] before marrying Gabson Foye. Many therefore assumed she was indeed involved with young Bethany but wished to keep it secret for, while it had not been enforced in law since the Karcist Truce, taking a lover during this period still brought scorn from all but the most perversely depraved members of society.<br />
<br />
The rumours intensified throughout the tri-menth especially after an incident, that they quite likely precipitated, when Sinch and Foye were entertaining guests that had travelled far to attend the marriage, then a mere two days away. Reports say that Foye was talking with some distant relatives and became visibly pained at what was being recounted to him. Abruptly, he left that knot of people and approached another where Sinch was in the middle of an anecdote about a daring trip to Alezan with a childhood friend. Just as the friend and her began to argue about which had wet themselves when startled by a swarm of [[Burnflies]] and which had fainted, Foye leapt upon them, forcibly grabbed Sinch by the elbow, and led her into a private room while her childhood friend fainted in shock.<br />
<br />
Some indistinct, but clearly heated, words were heard being spoken by both Sinch and Foye. Then the argument abruptly stopped, Foye emerged from the room bleeding profusely from his nose, and left the party. He was not seen again until the day of his wedding at which he had prominent bruising beneath both eyes. After the wedding, Foye and Sinch were the very model of a happily married couple, and Mboya’s involvement with Sinch seemed less likely... she never featured amongst the series of lovers Sinch would later enjoy.<br />
<br />
Already at this time, Mboya was being featured in a series of [[lumogram]]s which showed her wearing a light robe of sheer coomecloth which fluttered, often revealingly, in the wind (indeed there was rumoured to be a limited collection of further lumograms which had a heavier emphasis on revealing and a considerably lighter emphasis on robes). The largest collection of these published contained the following accompanying text, which is attributed to Mikel Mboya (who did not claim to be a relative):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Bethany’s hooded eyes shine from underneath her flowing red hair. A light sprinkle of freckles, like that of stars on a clear summer night, sits delicately across the tops of her cheeks and decorates the wind-pinched blush that speaks of innocence and knowing at the same time. Her thighs are enticing curves of flawless white…"</blockquote><br />
<br />
Bad purple prose aside, suffice it to say that she was considered attractive.<br />
<br />
Mboya was soon reported to be lovers with a variety of artists, scholars, [[Bindlet Ball]] players, and politicians of every persuasion. Many denied or ignored the rumours, but some openly admitted to such affairs, like the performer Pararariax who claimed to be involved in a complicated relationship between himself, Mboya and Bunny Hutch. He later claimed she could be considered a 6th muse and was convicted of numerical heresy.<br />
<br />
It was around -9 {{EC}} that the first writings of Mboya were published. These small pamphlets, invariably featuring a lumogram on the back in the familiar situation of wearing clothes suitable for calm conditions in near-gale conditions, addressed a variety of subjects researched (if that word may be applied at all) through inspirational techniques that at best led to hard to verify results. The effects of these pamphlets are hard to measure now. They tied in to various current trends in intellectual circles, in particular the morality of studying light, the benefits of publishing regained knowledge, and the wisdom of commencing a project whereby a large body of scholarship would be published in the form of an encyclopædia.<br />
<br />
None of this was entirely new, and some of it had peaked as a matter of controversy some time before, but it was in balancing the generally scholarly, scientific, and [[Occultologists|occultological]] nature of these trends with a poetic and irrational component that Mboya added a new flavour to intellectual life.<br />
<br />
“We are all enthrall[sic] to the beauty of Bethany Mboya” notes a comment scrawled in the margin of a draft index to this very encyclopædia – adding the suggestion that the gender balance of the encyclopædia’s scholars, being strikingly different to the more egalitarian balance in much other endeavour, seems to match the proportion of male and female lovers Mboya was said to have taken. In fairness, a further comment scrawled below the first refutes this, and yet another states “Just because none of us want to bring your putrid body to our beds does not mean we’re keeping the space warm for Bethany”.<br />
<br />
By -5 {{EC}}, it was common for people, especially men, from all strands of cultural life to openly boast of nights spent in Mboya’s company, and of the considerable pleasure such encounters would bring. Perhaps most remarkable is the general warmth felt towards Mboya from most quarters, including those who strongly resisted the scholarly and artistic movements with which she was associated. It is hard to find record of an unkind word being spoken of her, though clearly the mother mentioned in this extract from the [[Folktown Records]] was an exception:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''The question:'' My mother says that Bethany Mboya is “No better than she ought to be”. What does this strangely formed sentence mean, and is it true? ''And the reply:'' I can assure you from personal experience that Bethany is considerably better than any one woman has any right to be.</blockquote><br />
<br />
By -3 {{EC}}, it was clear that it was not physically possible for Bethany Mboya to have the estimated 6,437 lovers she was said to have taken that year and still have time to publish a pamphlet on the importance of light in the racial memory of Ghyll, let alone with posing for at least 27 lumograms on at least 3 different windswept moors wearing (or nearly wearing) at least 7 different robes or gowns alike in the lack of resistance they posed to the slightest breeze.<br />
<br />
More pressingly, it was increasingly clear that Mboya did not appear in public and was seen only in lumograms. Gabson Foye, perhaps still smarting from the events some 6 years previous, began to research the source of the pamphlets and lumograms. Early in -2 {{EC}}, he located Bethany Mboya.<br />
<br />
Upon discovering that Bethany Mboya was in fact Spearholder Jan ver Daath (Retired) of the [[Tarkherk Corps]] – a fat balding man lacking his right eye and two fingers on his left hand (a legacy of his part in the [[Conflict That Is Not Happening]]) and afflicted by an immediately perceptible lack of personal hygeine and tendency to scratch his genitals with his injured hand every few minutes – claims to have slept with Mboya immediately dropped in frequency.<br />
<br />
The writings clearly lost their market, and Bethany Mboya soon became no more than a memory.<br />
<br />
'''Citations''': [[Burnflies]], [[Betrothal march]], [[Lumogram]].<br />
<br />
--[[User:Talliesin|Talliesin]] 11:41, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[[Category:People]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Nice entry. Surprising such a brilliant mind retired at the lowly rank of spearholder. But that's the Tarkerk Corps, for you, I guess- full of brilliant people accomplishing great things, yet so few rose to the ranks of the elite dullards who ostensibly led them.--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 11:57, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Bethany was not of the privileged élite. Well, while the ranks of Swordwielder, Spearholder, and Reconaissance Background Magnetic Field Mapper are considered lowly for those commissioned into the forces (and recent moves to remove the ranks references to obsolete military rôles shows how little regard they have for the history and honour of those ranks) for someone who rose through the enlisted ranks to them they are still a matter of some pride. The fact that he kept the rank into retirement shows that Jan ver Daath was such a man.<br />
<br />
He had indeed a great mind, but a deeply perverse one, and while his ideas influence much of the way we currently think as scholars, to express them primarily through the production of mildly pornographic material and through seducing people under a false persona, doesn't indicate a balanced mind, even if it is a great one.<br />
<br />
But then I suspect you share scepticism here and that you are indeed the author of the "putrid body" comment I noted in the article. Is this the case? Has there been any inappropriate pressure put upon you by the more putrid of our colleagues (which would be perhaps most of them)? Would you be interested in selling your story? --[[User:Talliesin|Talliesin]] 19:42, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not at all. I've studied the original and current incarnations of the Tarkerk Corps rather extensively. Traditionally, this storied service has embraced, at least in theory, the iconoclastic but eminently sensible practice of promoting officers out of the enlisted ranks. Because they work in very small and highly specialized groups, this - at least in theory- helps ensure that authority is accompanied by experience. But in recent times, a relatively green recruit can in fact advance to the highest levels of leadership rather quickly, if the right amount of expensive education is noted in their records. One example of this decay is how it has even become fashionable in some circles to have a son or daughter- highly placed, of course- in this esteemed corps. But for such a great mind to not even ascend to the rank of brasshat over an entire career, esp. in the "old corps," is an oversight that borders on criminal, to my mind. I wonder if in fact he actually achieved some higher rank, but lost it due to some undisclosed indiscretion. Now put down your sword, you can put an eye out with that thing!--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 21:43, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bethany_Mboya&diff=22788Ghyll:Bethany Mboya2004-09-15T01:43:49Z<p>Bast ResNovae: fixed sig.</p>
<hr />
<div>The story of Bethany Mboya is perhaps best conveyed following the order in which facts became known, otherwise it is hard to convey the serious impact she had upon the political, religious, scholarly, and artistic life including, above all, the impact various sensations had upon the Housewives And Nannies' Debatory Banter Association of Ghyll, who have still not recovered from some of the later revelations.<br />
<br />
The birth date of Bethany was never clear, but upon her entering the public eye (so to speak) in -11 {{EC}}, she was apparently 19 years of age. There being no record of her before than, her name was assumed to be a pseudonym; while there are now many girls called Bethany between the ages of 2 and 11, and though the name has again returned to popularity this year (recorded by the Bureau of Numbing Research as the 4th most popular name for girl babies), it sounded quite exotic to the ear of her contemporaries.<br />
<br />
Bethany is, of course, a feminine version of the common name Bedanant; Mboya is so common as to be almost a default when creating a pseudonym on the spot. Of course, since using a pseudonym is common in Ghyll (all the more so amongst those who move in artistic circles), she immediately impacted that the use of a pseudonym was not remarkable save to add to the mystique surrounding her past.<br />
<br />
At any rate, it was at the age of 19 that she was rumoured to be the romantic partner of the artist Siam Sinch and to be the inspiration for much of her work, both in the rôle of muse and as an intellectual force behind Sinch’s still rather daring ideological views on the use of light in artistic expression.<br />
<br />
Sinch denied all such rumours, or any knowledge of anyone by the name Bethany Mboya. However, she was at that point entering the final tri-menth of her [[betrothal march]] before marrying Gabson Foye. Many therefore assumed she was indeed involved with young Bethany but wished to keep it secret for, while it had not been enforced in law since the Karcist Truce, taking a lover during this period still brought scorn from all but the most perversely depraved members of society.<br />
<br />
The rumours intensified throughout the tri-menth especially after an incident, that they quite likely precipitated, when Sinch and Foye were entertaining guests that had travelled far to attend the marriage, then a mere two days away. Reports say that Foye was talking with some distant relatives and became visibly pained at what was being recounted to him. Abruptly, he left that knot of people and approached another where Sinch was in the middle of an anecdote about a daring trip to Alezan with a childhood friend. Just as the friend and her began to argue about which had wet themselves when startled by a swarm of [[Burnflies]] and which had fainted, Foye leapt upon them, forcibly grabbed Sinch by the elbow, and led her into a private room while her childhood friend fainted in shock.<br />
<br />
Some indistinct, but clearly heated, words were heard being spoken by both Sinch and Foye. Then the argument abruptly stopped, Foye emerged from the room bleeding profusely from his nose, and left the party. He was not seen again until the day of his wedding at which he had prominent bruising beneath both eyes. After the wedding, Foye and Sinch were the very model of a happily married couple, and Mboya’s involvement with Sinch seemed less likely... she never featured amongst the series of lovers Sinch would later enjoy.<br />
<br />
Already at this time, Mboya was being featured in a series of [[lumogram]]s which showed her wearing a light robe of sheer coomecloth which fluttered, often revealingly, in the wind (indeed there was rumoured to be a limited collection of further lumograms which had a heavier emphasis on revealing and a considerably lighter emphasis on robes). The largest collection of these published contained the following accompanying text, which is attributed to Mikel Mboya (who did not claim to be a relative):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Bethany’s hooded eyes shine from underneath her flowing red hair. A light sprinkle of freckles, like that of stars on a clear summer night, sits delicately across the tops of her cheeks and decorates the wind-pinched blush that speaks of innocence and knowing at the same time. Her thighs are enticing curves of flawless white…"</blockquote><br />
<br />
Bad purple prose aside, suffice it to say that she was considered attractive.<br />
<br />
Mboya was soon reported to be lovers with a variety of artists, scholars, [[Bindlet Ball]] players, and politicians of every persuasion. Many denied or ignored the rumours, but some openly admitted to such affairs, like the performer Pararariax who claimed to be involved in a complicated relationship between himself, Mboya and Bunny Hutch. He later claimed she could be considered a 6th muse and was convicted of numerical heresy.<br />
<br />
It was around -9 {{EC}} that the first writings of Mboya were published. These small pamphlets, invariably featuring a lumogram on the back in the familiar situation of wearing clothes suitable for calm conditions in near-gale conditions, addressed a variety of subjects researched (if that word may be applied at all) through inspirational techniques that at best led to hard to verify results. The effects of these pamphlets are hard to measure now. They tied in to various current trends in intellectual circles, in particular the morality of studying light, the benefits of publishing regained knowledge, and the wisdom of commencing a project whereby a large body of scholarship would be published in the form of an encyclopædia.<br />
<br />
None of this was entirely new, and some of it had peaked as a matter of controversy some time before, but it was in balancing the generally scholarly, scientific, and [[Occultologists|occultological]] nature of these trends with a poetic and irrational component that Mboya added a new flavour to intellectual life.<br />
<br />
“We are all enthrall[sic] to the beauty of Bethany Mboya” notes a comment scrawled in the margin of a draft index to this very encyclopædia – adding the suggestion that the gender balance of the encyclopædia’s scholars, being strikingly different to the more egalitarian balance in much other endeavour, seems to match the proportion of male and female lovers Mboya was said to have taken. In fairness, a further comment scrawled below the first refutes this, and yet another states “Just because none of us want to bring your putrid body to our beds does not mean we’re keeping the space warm for Bethany”.<br />
<br />
By -5 {{EC}}, it was common for people, especially men, from all strands of cultural life to openly boast of nights spent in Mboya’s company, and of the considerable pleasure such encounters would bring. Perhaps most remarkable is the general warmth felt towards Mboya from most quarters, including those who strongly resisted the scholarly and artistic movements with which she was associated. It is hard to find record of an unkind word being spoken of her, though clearly the mother mentioned in this extract from the [[Folktown Records]] was an exception:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''The question:'' My mother says that Bethany Mboya is “No better than she ought to be”. What does this strangely formed sentence mean, and is it true? ''And the reply:'' I can assure you from personal experience that Bethany is considerably better than any one woman has any right to be.</blockquote><br />
<br />
By -3 {{EC}}, it was clear that it was not physically possible for Bethany Mboya to have the estimated 6,437 lovers she was said to have taken that year and still have time to publish a pamphlet on the importance of light in the racial memory of Ghyll, let alone with posing for at least 27 lumograms on at least 3 different windswept moors wearing (or nearly wearing) at least 7 different robes or gowns alike in the lack of resistance they posed to the slightest breeze.<br />
<br />
More pressingly, it was increasingly clear that Mboya did not appear in public and was seen only in lumograms. Gabson Foye, perhaps still smarting from the events some 6 years previous, began to research the source of the pamphlets and lumograms. Early in -2 {{EC}}, he located Bethany Mboya.<br />
<br />
Upon discovering that Bethany Mboya was in fact Spearholder Jan ver Daath (Retired) of the [[Tarkherk Corps]] – a fat balding man lacking his right eye and two fingers on his left hand (a legacy of his part in the [[Conflict That Is Not Happening]]) and afflicted by an immediately perceptible lack of personal hygeine and tendency to scratch his genitals with his injured hand every few minutes – claims to have slept with Mboya immediately dropped in frequency.<br />
<br />
The writings clearly lost their market, and Bethany Mboya soon became no more than a memory.<br />
<br />
'''Citations''': [[Burnflies]], [[Betrothal march]], [[Lumogram]].<br />
<br />
--[[User:Talliesin|Talliesin]] 11:41, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[[Category:People]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Nice entry. Surprising such a brilliant mind retired at the lowly rank of spearholder. But that's the Tarkerk Corps, for you, I guess- full of brilliant people accomplishing great things, yet so few rose to the ranks of the elite dullards who ostensibly led them.--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 11:57, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Bethany was not of the privileged élite. Well, while the ranks of Swordwielder, Spearholder, and Reconaissance Background Magnetic Field Mapper are considered lowly for those commissioned into the forces (and recent moves to remove the ranks references to obsolete military rôles shows how little regard they have for the history and honour of those ranks) for someone who rose through the enlisted ranks to them they are still a matter of some pride. The fact that he kept the rank into retirement shows that Jan ver Daath was such a man.<br />
<br />
He had indeed a great mind, but a deeply perverse one, and while his ideas influence much of the way we currently think as scholars, to express them primarily through the production of mildly pornographic material and through seducing people under a false persona, doesn't indicate a balanced mind, even if it is a great one.<br />
<br />
But then I suspect you share scepticism here and that you are indeed the author of the "putrid body" comment I noted in the article. Is this the case? Has there been any inappropriate pressure put upon you by the more putrid of our colleagues (which would be perhaps most of them)? Would you be interested in selling your story? --[[User:Talliesin|Talliesin]] 19:42, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not at all. I've studied the original and current incarnations of the Tarkerk Corps rather extensively. Traditionally, this storied service has embraced, at least in theory, the iconoclastic but eminently sensible practice of promoting officers out of the enlisted ranks. Because they work in very small and highly specialized groups, this - at least in theory- helps ensure that authority is accompanied by experience. But in recent times, a relatively green recruit can in fact advance to the highest levels of leadership rather quickly, if the right amount of expensive education is noted in their records. One example of this decay is how it has even become fashionable in some circles to have a son or daughter- highly placed, of course- in this esteemed corps. But for such a great mind to not even ascend to the rank of brasshat in the course of such a distinguished carrer, esp. in the "old corps," is an oversight that borders on criminal, to my mind. I wonder if in fact he actually achieved some higher rank, but lost it due to some undisclosed indiscretion. Now put down your sword, you can put an eye out with that thing!--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 21:43, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Bethany_Mboya&diff=28061Ghyll talk:Bethany Mboya2004-09-14T15:57:00Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>Nice entry. Surprising such a brilliant mind retired at the lowly rank of spearholder. But that's the Tarkerk Corps, for you, I guess- full of brilliant people accomplishing great tings, yet so few rose to the ranks of the elite dullards who ostensibly led them.--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 11:57, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=User:Bast_ResNovae&diff=29324User:Bast ResNovae2004-09-14T04:03:46Z<p>Bast ResNovae: /* Bast ResNovae, Ghyll Scholar */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Bast ResNovae, Ghyll Scholar==<br />
<br />
Bast ResNovae is a freelance scholar who specializes in media criticism and dabbles elsewhere. She employs stilted phrasing and a severely affected speech pattern in the unfortunate hope that this will make her sound more intelligent than she would in her native dialect, which is best described as "extreme-high profane." Even more unfortunately, she's right.<br />
<br />
==Bast ResNovae, Person==<br />
<br />
Is a displaced Yankee who works long hours for very little money writing for a small newspaper in the southeastern United States. To vent her frustrations, sometimes she makes stuff up- and then puts in on the internet.</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22891Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-14T03:52:01Z<p>Bast ResNovae: fixed minor stuff that bugged me, clarifying language, projected publication date of Aaliens, Anywhere? as fall , 0 EC</p>
<hr />
<div>Bobby "Robert" Schwarmph putatively edits "Aliens Everywhere" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22 {{EC}}, after he apparently went into seclusion for reasons known only to him at the time of writing. Research reveals all of Schwarmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by associate and confidante "Easy" Lizzard after that date. Folktown Records #519 reported he may--or may not--have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident, suffering searing burns across his throat which left him scarred and speechless. The article also hints he may have been the victim of foul play. However, our interviews with former associates indicate Schwarmph was mostly driven into plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during his factfinding trip to the [[Alezan]] ruins near his home.<br />
<br />
Schwarmph has been accused of using his popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against his political adversaries, but not even his most strident critics seem to remember what evidence they had against him on this point. Few of them remain in office or retain any semblance of their former importance, so their names probably aren't worth mentioning here. He is a member of the [[Brothers of the Lantern]], and published a paper in that organization's scholarly journal as a student in -14 {{EC}}. In that text, he rejected [[AuroAnthropology]] as a doctrinal heresy and held that light is the product of electromagnetic radiation that has little or no bearing on human behavior. He also rejected the concept that social behavior could be studied by scientific investigations. It is not known if this conservative paradigm is actually upheld by other members of the Brotherhood- or even Shwarmph himself, given this and some of his magazine's own conspiracy theoried may be subversive efforts at social engineering.<br />
<br />
Or, as his own magazine frequently posits, "is that what they ''want'' you to think?"<br />
<br />
Schwarmph is said to be a veteran of the [[Conflict That Is Not Happening]], serving as a platoon leader in the [[Tarkherk Corps]]. <br />
<br />
Shwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by either actress Izadora Gutschtup, or an [[Alezanians|Alezanian]]- depending on the rumormonger. Records involving the younger Shwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts, but he remains a powerful figure in certain academic circles.<br />
<br />
The reclusive Bobby Shwarmph is scheduled to produce an anthology called "Aliens, Anywhere?" with the Academy of Conspiracy Theologists press in the fall of 0 {{EC}}. Drafts of the preface released to a select figures of note for comment are highly sought after among the academics, collectors, and the press- but access has been tightly controlled by Shwarmph. One purported draft, with forged "certificate of authenticity," was recently debunked by a sharp-eyed scholar at the Aerensplay Bazaar. The vendor was reportedly asking 4,900 Quezloos for the faked [[luminous manuscript]].<br />
<br />
'''Citations''': [[Alezan]], [[luminous manuscript]], [[Tarkherk Corps]].<br />
<br />
--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]], 01:02, 12 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[[Category:People]]</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Bysted_Timperton&diff=28172Ghyll talk:Bysted Timperton2004-09-14T03:42:23Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>My research shows Bobby wemt into seclusion a few years ago after an ill-fated expedition to the ruins of Alezan, he hasn't been seen by anyone other than Easy Lizzard since- although he does maintain an active correspondence. It is possible this exchange was not made face to face, but through some other medium. It is also possible Bysted was actually speaking to a body double hired for the purpose of the interview, but I never found any proof such doubles are employed by Mr Shwarmph. --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 08:31, 13 Sep 2004<br />
<br />
Please sign your entries. Who said the above? (Presumably, Bast ResNovae, and thus, I'm adding that signature). Eiither way, yep, they have a point. Your entry will need to be revised somehow. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 08:34, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry- when I try to sign entries, all I get is a squiggle- how do I change this? I have to copy and paste in other people's stamps, then make changes manually right now.--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 08:38, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The squiggle is actually magick... when you "Show preview", you'll see how it gets expanded to the right information automatically. However, this'll only work properly if you're actually signed in. Without being signed in, you'll just show your IP address. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 08:50, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Actually, Robbi was going to be yelled at by sbp about this article today, and was going to fix anything wrong with it. This is First Draft, not Final Article. --[[User:D8uv|Melik Fizzou]] 08:57, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The "yelling" [http://swhack.com/logs/2004-09-14#T02-16-00 took place] on Swhack. The summary is that it would be nice if there could be more substance for what it rather a pivotal entry. If you're going to dib entries that have a central role in the current Ghyll milieu, you're taking on quite an added responsibility; I have a feeling that Robbi didn't realise that at the time. Nontheless, his effort is appreciated. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 22:44, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hey, speaking as a newbie, it takes a bit for a newbie to get the hang of things... I think you've got to post _something_ and get it wrong and get that feedback. It's just part of the learning curve. That's why we can edit, right, to ID then iron out where things need tweaking?--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 23:42, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Bysted_Timperton&diff=28171Ghyll talk:Bysted Timperton2004-09-14T03:41:45Z<p>Bast ResNovae: in Robbi's defense</p>
<hr />
<div>My research shows Bobby wemt into seclusion a few years ago after an ill-fated expedition to the ruins of Alezan, he hasn't been seen by anyone other than Easy Lizzard since- although he does maintain an active correspondence. It is possible this exchange was not made face to face, but through some other medium. It is also possible Bysted was actually speaking to a body double hired for the purpose of the interview, but I never found any proof such doubles are employed by Mr Shwarmph. --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 08:31, 13 Sep 2004<br />
<br />
Please sign your entries. Who said the above? (Presumably, Bast ResNovae, and thus, I'm adding that signature). Eiither way, yep, they have a point. Your entry will need to be revised somehow. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 08:34, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry- when I try to sign entries, all I get is a squiggle- how do I change this? I have to copy and paste in other people's stamps, then make changes manually right now.--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 08:38, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The squiggle is actually magick... when you "Show preview", you'll see how it gets expanded to the right information automatically. However, this'll only work properly if you're actually signed in. Without being signed in, you'll just show your IP address. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 08:50, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Actually, Robbi was going to be yelled at by sbp about this article today, and was going to fix anything wrong with it. This is First Draft, not Final Article. --[[User:D8uv|Melik Fizzou]] 08:57, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The "yelling" [http://swhack.com/logs/2004-09-14#T02-16-00 took place] on Swhack. The summary is that it would be nice if there could be more substance for what it rather a pivotal entry. If you're going to dib entries that have a central role in the current Ghyll milieu, you're taking on quite an added responsibility; I have a feeling that Robbi didn't realise that at the time. Nontheless, his effort is appreciated. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 22:44, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hey, speaking as a newbie, it takes a bit for a newbie to get the hang of things... I think you've got to post _something_ and get it wrong and get that feedback. It's just part of the learning curve. That's why we can edit, right, to ID then iron out where things need tweaking?</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Lexicon_discussion&diff=26586Ghyll:Lexicon discussion2004-09-14T03:26:49Z<p>Bast ResNovae: /* Players and Scholars as Canon */</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__ <br />
<br />
If you've any questions or suggestions about the wiki and its syntax, the Lexicon rules, Ghyll continuity errors, letting us know you're gonna miss a turn, etc., use this page to wax poetic. Be sure to sign your name (using either the second - from - the - right toolbar icon, or typing two hyphens and four tildes), which also includes the timestamp. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 11:32, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Frequently Asked Questions==<br />
<br />
===How do I dib an entry (cf. Rule 1)?===<br />
If there is a specific phantom you'd like to write, wait until the proper turn occurs (ie. waiting for the "R" turn to dib phantom "Rancor") and then edit the phantom to just include a statement of dibbing ("MIIine! ALlL MiIInnE!") and your name/signature. Naturally, the intent of dibbing an entry is so that you actually write it - if you don't during that turn, your dib expires. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Can I cite more than I'm required to cite? (cf. Rule 2)===<br />
Each turn after the first, you're required to cite two phantom entries and one existing entry. Neither of these three citations can be terms you've created or written. However, if you've properly met these requirements, your entry can certainly refer to other terms in the Ghyll encyclopedia, including those you've personally written. These "other terms", however, MUST have been previously defined or created. See the [[Ghyll Index]] for a complete list of in-play terms. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===What happens about linking to widely-used terms?===<br />
It may often be the case that terms are used throughout the dictionary that are not cited initially: you're allowed to invent people, places, etc. that you don't actually cite a reference for. That means that later in the game, people can write about these people, and references can be strewn across the wiki that don't actively ''link'' to the phantom. How is the person to be able to research the references? The general rule of thumb is that when you create a term that you know has been mentioned elsewhere, either you go about looking for existing references and link them, or the admins do it for you. [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Comments, Questions, Complaints?==<br />
<br />
===Alternate Reality vs. Fictional World===<br />
Hello people. This looks like a nice game- but I think I got the rules a little wrong in my enthusiasm to get started, entry: anabiscot) by putting more "phantoms" into my entry than were asked for, and by fleshing one or two of them out. I find it impossible to backtrack on the fleshing out, and so a) don't know what to do about them, as I don't want to upeset anyone by not having strictly observed the rules for the first turn and b) wonder whether clearer guidance to newcomers is needed if this isn't to be a closed shop just for oldophytes --[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 05:28, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: we're open to newcomers, definitely. As for the rules, check out #1: "Scholars ... write one entry per turn" and then #2: "Entries shall cite two phantom entries". I've deleted all your out of turn entries, so there's no worries there (to return an entry to a phantom, just click the "delete" button as opposed to "edit", and give a reason for the deletion). Let me know which part of the rules initially confused you. We'll be adding an "Example of a Turn" to the main page shortly. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Finally, and sadly, I've deleted your Anabiscot entry for being too much of an "Earth-parody". It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper that was revised to include "made up" words as opposed to their Earthen counterparts (as seen in your revising of "England" to "Ghyll", and the inclusion of Christian, Protestant, University of Helsinki, etc., etc.). Based on your timpstamps, I can appreciate how this deletion must look compared to your two hours of editing. But, it's really not the sort of material we're looking for. Think "when we crossed the threshold, I hit my new bride's head on the door jamb, and in her ensuing mental insanity, she described something that'd sounds just like Ghyll's [NameOfEntry]" as opposed to "What have I written already that I can modify for the game?" --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The new entry on the EXAMPLE OF PLAY page is certainly much clearer than the previous offering, and is to be commended. Had that been there, I would not have stumbled as I did this morning. But the comment on my deleted entry "it's not really what we're looking for" is rather telling, and is telling me to be on my way nevertheless. "It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper..etc" also clearly reveals that you see your position as an empowered subeditor of sorts, who has the role of judging text quality; fair game -it's your server, you call the shots. But to this newcomer (a professional writer who wasted words this morning just for fun, and who hasn't written a term paper in over thirty years!) it nevertheless seems a great pity, because the game is a nice idea. Applying the wiki to what used to be called four-handed writing would allow the natural numerical limits of collaborative collective writing to over-bound. But in fact you're not open to newcomers at all, despite the protestations....but it was an interesting try.--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 17:49, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: there's been a lot of off-wiki discussion about how this game should unfold, comprising nine months of a lot of arguing, a lot of ideas and scanty documentation, and a lot of ideas that it's going to be difficult to crystallise on the wiki quickly. I, personally, think that your entries were marvellous, but in the context of the direction that we're trying to develop for this wiki they're not <em>quite</em> what we're after. In other words, we're opening this up very much on the ground floor and trying to establish the past that we have, so you'll have to excuse the odd bit of seemingly baseless "oh no, that's not the way it should be done" banter. Imagine if you'd come into a game that's been running for nearly a year, and there were a lot of dedicated players and in-game jokes and conventions already. That basically <em>is</em> the situation here to some extent, we just haven't been able to document it properly yet, and we're also in a stage of "well, let's see what other people think". Some things are very much negotiable, and some aren't. Anyway, I hope that you'll consider still joining in and being patient with us as we work through this nascent stage, because I think your entries showed an enthusiasm and quality that it would be sad for us to miss out on. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I've sent Ginestre a longer email on the subject, but the distinction I made with my actions was one of "fictional world" versus "alternate reality." It was our intent for Ghyll to be a "fictional world", one that has little semblance to the "real" world, namely Earth. While we realize this can be an impossibility, as creativity is emboldened in what we know, we wanted to stay away from what we call an "Earth parody" - a world that has direct, obvious, and blatant parallels to our own - more of an "alternate reality" as opposed to "fictional world". LORD OF THE RINGS is a "fictional world", whereas the Sci-Fi show SLIDERS is an alternate reality, as are the TWILIGHT ZONE, THE OUTER LIMITS, and so forth. Which isn't to say that I'm against equivalency - in the early game, newspaper, magnetism, war, research organizations, basements, "flash lights/beacons", etc. already exist. But they're described in an environment of "fictional world" not "alternate reality". As for judging text or entry quality, honestly, I'd like to stay as far away from that as possible. Again, the distinction made with your entry was one of "Earth parody" and not "fictional world." --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:20, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Non-turn Activities===<br />
Morbus: What're we doing with respect to canonical but non-turn activities? There's the possibility of the Encyclopedants mailing out letters to all the scholars as you discussed, but did we talk about a per-turn summary too? I think it'd be helpful in that it'd make us analyse what's currently being worked on to ensure its consistency, as well as helping newcomers to the game and people who have been on holiday etc. It could be a collaborative effort between all the scholars who contributed to the first turn, and it might actually serve to clarify some of the intentions etc. behind the entries. I'm not sure what framework could be used to justify it in terms of the game itself though; perhaps the scholars all meet up in a F2F meeting somewhere in a different location per turn? We could order it as though it's meeting minutes: have a little abstract of the location that we met at, introduce some of the scholars, have dialogue, and then the main summary of what's been written. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 17:46, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My personal in-game plan was, as you mention, the Encyclopedants - the people who are "funding" the encyclopedia and who "collate" the entries for "publication" (at the end of a turn). These Encyclopedants would serve as the "voice of cohesion", and really fill a void that the Ghyll Lexicon is missing: an existing backdrop to base entries on. Other Lexicons were based on existing worlds (Paranoia, Exalted, Nobilis), and thus, the "voice of cohesion" concerning stuff like dates, geography, races, etc. were the original books the games were derived from. There's none of that in Ghyll. For instance, sometime soon, the Encyclopedants will release a document, in-game, on how scholars should handle dates. This would be some sort of "Progress Report Issue 1", where # is the # of the turn in question. Ultimately, the topics discussed in these Progress Reports would be about the integrity of the encyclopedia itself: continuity errors, worrisome plot holes, and etc. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As for a scholarly F2F, I like that idea, and I think the best way to approximate that would be a sort of "in-game" Lexicon discussion. The Encyclopedants could release a Progress Report detailing worries they're having, and other scholars could log their own complaints and concerns on the Progress Report page itself. This would keep everything centralized, and would be a more vocal, less-controlled [[Current events]] (a "current in-game events") page. I think it'd also be handy, upon reaching Z, for scholars and the Encyclopedants to prepare a personal "Final Report", discussing how they felt things went, what could be done better for the next Round, and so on and so forth. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Other Threads===<br />
<br />
''Got some comments or questions? Add 'em here!''<br />
<br />
====Players and Scholars as Canon====<br />
<br />
Er, okay, so can we refer to our own characters as the inventors of something? By that I mean, if my character invented a new sight for the smooth-bore musket, could I make an entry based on that? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sure, there's nothing stopping you from doing that, but by making yourself an official part of the canon (as opposed to non-canon Scholar bios), you make yourself liable to follow other people's truths. It'd be possible to kill you off, and yadda yadda yadda. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 14:28, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, as long as I can make contributions from beyond the grave, or at least through posthumous notes, I might be okay with that.<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:32, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is a danger I did not foresee. In the Bobby Shwarmph entry, I included a reference that incorporated Scholar Edward Schwarmph into the canon, assuming that since he phantomed the entry and that he studies a field linked closely to that covered by the magazine edited by the character he created with the same surname, they were related. If I put him in danger in the process, that was probably a breach of courtesy. While I suppose there is nothing stopping any of us from embarking on studies to be discovered after our deaths, there is probably a better way to handle this. A later entry could establish a conduit of communication with dead scholars and other Ghyllians, but then we wouldn't have to do research at all- we'd just get a soul who was there on the line to offer their take on things. I suggest we treat bios as canonical, and all characters are "in game," and hence fair game. Then, if a scholar is killed off and its player cares to continue, the player creates a successor- say a favored student or offspring -poised to continue the work. If players are non-canon, I should either delete the Edward reference in the Bobby Shwarmph entry, be referring to someone else entirely who coincidentally has the exact same name and job, or at least get my fellow scholar'a permission before something unfortunate occurs to him as a result of my entering him into canon without his express consent. --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 20:40, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Which brings me to another question- presuming events are unfolding in our world even as more entries are written, we might run into situations where an entry is obsolete or needs updating based on events that hadn't happened yet, or information only discovered after it was written. Therefore, should we be dating our entries to avoid confusion? (ie: last updated 0/09/1 EC by Bast ResNovae) --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 20:40, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Making scholar biographies canon is very dangerous as it distorts the flow of the game. Since the bios are not restricted by turn of gameplay, they can be updated at any moment, thus invalidating anything previously written about them. Similarly, any scholar could define a phantom, then write about it in their scholar bio, thus hedging the bets that their phantom, written by someone else, is ''exactly how they envisioned it''. One of the "fun" aspects of the game is seeing your ideas corrupted and perverted into something you've never dreamed of - allowing scholars to modify their biographies at any time (since they're non-turns) invalidates this aspect. Remember the intro to the game: ''you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation.'' Just because you've named Edward Shwarmph in an entry doesn't mean it's the exact same Edward as the scholar: it could be his twin, clone, doppelganger, or what have you. If your Edward dies, it is "truth", but that doesn't mean that a new fact can't be introduced that twists the truth into something else entirely. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 21:20, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Making scholars themselves canon is something that only the player playing the scholar should decide they want to do: roleplaying a character based on someone else's direction is another aspect (with its own measure of "fun") of a Lexicon that may be enjoyable to some: it should be a choice to the player whether they want to receive this direction, or if they'd like to fixate on their own vision. Making all scholars canon, and thus definable and modifiable by others, may be above and beyond what a player would like, resulting in a character they simply don't want to play. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 21:20, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oh, I've opened a can of worms here. How does one propose a new rule? Perhaps the restriction of no new phantoms from a player's scholar's bio? Though, I'm in complete agreement that only players should be allowed to make their scholars canon. --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 21:41, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is already a house rule actually - see the last paragraph of "How to Participate" on the main page. I've already removed a number of newly defined phantoms from various scholar pages. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 21:54, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Good point. Player Edward Shwarmph could, for example, be riding on the coattails of a more distinguished scholar of the saame name. Or be impersonating him. Or be a relative... or what have you. If he still has the ability to accept or reject the canonical identity as he chooses, I won't worry about it- I'll just leave it up to him.--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 23:26, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
====Correction of spelling and typos====<br />
<br />
What is general etiquette on the correction of spelling and typos in entries other than mine? (not that either my spelling or typing is perfect, but I assume nobody objects if I correct myself)?<br />
--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If it's definitely an error, please go ahead and correct it! As long as you don't change the semantics of someone's entry, you can certainly change the syntax to make it easier to read, clearer, etc. Imagine you're correcting someone's English paper: you're not going to do their work for them, but you want to let them know that it's "i before e except after c and except in wierd words such as weird". --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 14:09, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Useful Resources==<br />
<br />
You can use this [http://www.fourteenminutes.com/fun/words/ random word generator] to generate entry names that begin with a specified pair of letters. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 17:07, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You may also make use of generators found here [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/ Chris Pound's Name Generation Page], particularly, [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/#werd werd], for names. (Look for the examples of Victorian English names.)<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:01, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=28100Ghyll talk:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-14T00:50:47Z<p>Bast ResNovae: typo fixes</p>
<hr />
<div>==Out-Of-Game Discussion==<br />
<br />
Sorry, I'm new to this- Am I even close? --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 22:15, 11 Sep 2004<br />
<br />
Hi there! Welcome to Ghyll and thanks for taking the time to play, etc. Your entry is a pretty good one (I'm being consistently surprised by the outstanding quality of random players that've stumbled across Ghyll--may I ask where you found out about it from?), but of course there are quite a few little things that I'm able to nitpick at.<br />
<br />
For a start, though the name "Izzy Eddard" is hilarious, we try to avoid earth parodies as much as possible. Though it's certainly in keeping with the feel of many of the current Ghyll names, and indeed follows a pattern similar to "Morphous Ibb" in [[Quezlarian numerals]], it'd be nice if you could think of something equally as hilarious but without the earth parody overtones.<br />
<br />
Secondly, since "Folktown Records edition 419 was issued on -5/12/8 EC" according to [http://inamidst.com/misc/folkrec/419 my little script], that means that FR must've commented on his disappearance ''before'' he disappeared, which is course is rather inconsistent. You might want to use the online script linked above to find an FR edition after -4/7/22 that suits your tastes. Remember that due to the dates being negative, -4 comes ''after'' -5. It is a bit confusing; sorry!<br />
<br />
By "aurosociology" I presume you meant [[AuroAnthropology]], and though I wasn't sure, I corrected it anyway. You can check out all of the [http://gamegrene.com/wiki/?title=Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=0&oldid=698 little copyediting changes] I made (argh, actually the diff sucks so it'll be difficult for you to find them). The one thing that I wasn't able to do is pick your citations for you. According to the rules, you have to refer to one existing entry, and two new "phantom" entries. It's up to you to select which ones you want to link, so I'm leaving it down to you. Check out the bottom of all of the existing entries for the letter "b" as examples of what kind of thing we'd like. Don't forget to link to any existing entries and phantoms where you can in the main body of your entry, though the admins (including me) can do this for you once you've picked which citations you like. Also, please sign all your works using the signature button in the editing toolbar: it's the second one in from the right.<br />
<br />
Also, who is "Glynn"? He's mentioned only once in the article and not explained. You spelled "Shwarmph" wrong a couple of times too, which is probably not a good thing as you're writing an article on him! At least you're not writing [[Supetupheraraphes]]...<br />
<br />
It's funny that the entry I'm about to post also invented a currency system (that's intrinsic to one of the jokes of the entry), and one that's named quite similarly to yours. Since yours doesn't seem to be intrinsic to the meaning of the entry, I've renamed it [currency] for now, and will fill it in with my own when I've published it, for consistency. If you really, really want to use the original name, please let me know (or simply edit it back) so that we can discuss which one to use.<br />
<br />
So all in all, very good effort, but needs a bit more tweaking from you. And welcome again to Ghyll! --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 23:31, 11 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Welcome Bast! I agree with Sean, an excellent entry on to the scene of Ghyll. Hmmm... Sean is introducing a currency system, and I just introduced a set of day and month names to work with the existing calender... this should be fun. Hope to be seeing more from you Bast. Feel free to add commentary to the end of other folk's entries if you'd like. Just remember that comments aren't "binding" upon the world, while actual entries are. --[[User:Qwentyth Pyre|Qwentyth Pyre]] 00:41, 12 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks! No, I knew about the typos, It was just 'I'm on my way to bed and I'm allergic to doing to much editing on stuff I know I'm going to have too rework extensively anyway.' I heard about Ghyll from Morbus- I'm a journalist, and know him from "back in the day"... he sent me the link after I was whining I spend all day writing about a lot of things I could care less about. Believe it or not, for a newbie and nongamer, it's tough trying to keep the history of the A's _alone_. Keeping it all straight in my head while working is a little daunting, along with trying to get the hang of the formatting conventions and the interface.<br />
<br />
Lets see- Sean, I have no particular attachment to the currency system at all and was a little reluctant to name one for that reason, because i figured it was near and dear to someone's heart. But, figured somone would step in if I screwed it up. I'll have to go back and read the citations on the issue numbers and date system- might have gotten something a little backwards. I did read that bit about earth parodies and had to do some rewrriting as a result, but, couldn't resist the name... don't worry, I'll think of something else, though. To be honest, just wondered if anyone'd pick up on it ;-) <br />
<br />
PS: OK, made some changes. Was going to link to the Association of Conspiracy Theologists, but there's an awful lot of academia out there already, so I invented a suitably mysterious war for the mysterious Shwarmph... seems like such a contentious world probably comes to blows more often than this record currently reflects. Also, linked to "luminous manuscript." Am thinking it's some sort of successor to illuminated manuscripts, maybe with hyperlinks, or glows in the dark, or is neon or projects like a hologram- for the hell of it. Just thought it might be fun to define if anyone chooses to inherit it. --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 10:09, 12 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Lexicon_discussion&diff=26581Ghyll:Lexicon discussion2004-09-14T00:45:30Z<p>Bast ResNovae: /* Other Threads */</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__ <br />
<br />
If you've any questions or suggestions about the wiki and its syntax, the Lexicon rules, Ghyll continuity errors, letting us know you're gonna miss a turn, etc., use this page to wax poetic. Be sure to sign your name (using either the second - from - the - right toolbar icon, or typing two hyphens and four tildes), which also includes the timestamp. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 11:32, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Frequently Asked Questions==<br />
<br />
===How do I dib an entry (cf. Rule 1)?===<br />
If there is a specific phantom you'd like to write, wait until the proper turn occurs (ie. waiting for the "R" turn to dib phantom "Rancor") and then edit the phantom to just include a statement of dibbing ("MIIine! ALlL MiIInnE!") and your name/signature. Naturally, the intent of dibbing an entry is so that you actually write it - if you don't during that turn, your dib expires. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Can I cite more than I'm required to cite? (cf. Rule 2)===<br />
Each turn after the first, you're required to cite two phantom entries and one existing entry. Neither of these three citations can be terms you've created or written. However, if you've properly met these requirements, your entry can certainly refer to other terms in the Ghyll encyclopedia, including those you've personally written. These "other terms", however, MUST have been previously defined or created. See the [[Ghyll Index]] for a complete list of in-play terms. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===What happens about linking to widely-used terms?===<br />
It may often be the case that terms are used throughout the dictionary that are not cited initially: you're allowed to invent people, places, etc. that you don't actually cite a reference for. That means that later in the game, people can write about these people, and references can be strewn across the wiki that don't actively ''link'' to the phantom. How is the person to be able to research the references? The general rule of thumb is that when you create a term that you know has been mentioned elsewhere, either you go about looking for existing references and link them, or the admins do it for you. [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Comments, Questions, Complaints?==<br />
<br />
===Alternate Reality vs. Fictional World===<br />
Hello people. This looks like a nice game- but I think I got the rules a little wrong in my enthusiasm to get started, entry: anabiscot) by putting more "phantoms" into my entry than were asked for, and by fleshing one or two of them out. I find it impossible to backtrack on the fleshing out, and so a) don't know what to do about them, as I don't want to upeset anyone by not having strictly observed the rules for the first turn and b) wonder whether clearer guidance to newcomers is needed if this isn't to be a closed shop just for oldophytes --[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 05:28, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: we're open to newcomers, definitely. As for the rules, check out #1: "Scholars ... write one entry per turn" and then #2: "Entries shall cite two phantom entries". I've deleted all your out of turn entries, so there's no worries there (to return an entry to a phantom, just click the "delete" button as opposed to "edit", and give a reason for the deletion). Let me know which part of the rules initially confused you. We'll be adding an "Example of a Turn" to the main page shortly. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Finally, and sadly, I've deleted your Anabiscot entry for being too much of an "Earth-parody". It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper that was revised to include "made up" words as opposed to their Earthen counterparts (as seen in your revising of "England" to "Ghyll", and the inclusion of Christian, Protestant, University of Helsinki, etc., etc.). Based on your timpstamps, I can appreciate how this deletion must look compared to your two hours of editing. But, it's really not the sort of material we're looking for. Think "when we crossed the threshold, I hit my new bride's head on the door jamb, and in her ensuing mental insanity, she described something that'd sounds just like Ghyll's [NameOfEntry]" as opposed to "What have I written already that I can modify for the game?" --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The new entry on the EXAMPLE OF PLAY page is certainly much clearer than the previous offering, and is to be commended. Had that been there, I would not have stumbled as I did this morning. But the comment on my deleted entry "it's not really what we're looking for" is rather telling, and is telling me to be on my way nevertheless. "It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper..etc" also clearly reveals that you see your position as an empowered subeditor of sorts, who has the role of judging text quality; fair game -it's your server, you call the shots. But to this newcomer (a professional writer who wasted words this morning just for fun, and who hasn't written a term paper in over thirty years!) it nevertheless seems a great pity, because the game is a nice idea. Applying the wiki to what used to be called four-handed writing would allow the natural numerical limits of collaborative collective writing to over-bound. But in fact you're not open to newcomers at all, despite the protestations....but it was an interesting try.--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 17:49, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: there's been a lot of off-wiki discussion about how this game should unfold, comprising nine months of a lot of arguing, a lot of ideas and scanty documentation, and a lot of ideas that it's going to be difficult to crystallise on the wiki quickly. I, personally, think that your entries were marvellous, but in the context of the direction that we're trying to develop for this wiki they're not <em>quite</em> what we're after. In other words, we're opening this up very much on the ground floor and trying to establish the past that we have, so you'll have to excuse the odd bit of seemingly baseless "oh no, that's not the way it should be done" banter. Imagine if you'd come into a game that's been running for nearly a year, and there were a lot of dedicated players and in-game jokes and conventions already. That basically <em>is</em> the situation here to some extent, we just haven't been able to document it properly yet, and we're also in a stage of "well, let's see what other people think". Some things are very much negotiable, and some aren't. Anyway, I hope that you'll consider still joining in and being patient with us as we work through this nascent stage, because I think your entries showed an enthusiasm and quality that it would be sad for us to miss out on. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I've sent Ginestre a longer email on the subject, but the distinction I made with my actions was one of "fictional world" versus "alternate reality." It was our intent for Ghyll to be a "fictional world", one that has little semblance to the "real" world, namely Earth. While we realize this can be an impossibility, as creativity is emboldened in what we know, we wanted to stay away from what we call an "Earth parody" - a world that has direct, obvious, and blatant parallels to our own - more of an "alternate reality" as opposed to "fictional world". LORD OF THE RINGS is a "fictional world", whereas the Sci-Fi show SLIDERS is an alternate reality, as are the TWILIGHT ZONE, THE OUTER LIMITS, and so forth. Which isn't to say that I'm against equivalency - in the early game, newspaper, magnetism, war, research organizations, basements, "flash lights/beacons", etc. already exist. But they're described in an environment of "fictional world" not "alternate reality". As for judging text or entry quality, honestly, I'd like to stay as far away from that as possible. Again, the distinction made with your entry was one of "Earth parody" and not "fictional world." --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:20, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Non-turn Activities===<br />
Morbus: What're we doing with respect to canonical but non-turn activities? There's the possibility of the Encyclopedants mailing out letters to all the scholars as you discussed, but did we talk about a per-turn summary too? I think it'd be helpful in that it'd make us analyse what's currently being worked on to ensure its consistency, as well as helping newcomers to the game and people who have been on holiday etc. It could be a collaborative effort between all the scholars who contributed to the first turn, and it might actually serve to clarify some of the intentions etc. behind the entries. I'm not sure what framework could be used to justify it in terms of the game itself though; perhaps the scholars all meet up in a F2F meeting somewhere in a different location per turn? We could order it as though it's meeting minutes: have a little abstract of the location that we met at, introduce some of the scholars, have dialogue, and then the main summary of what's been written. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 17:46, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My personal in-game plan was, as you mention, the Encyclopedants - the people who are "funding" the encyclopedia and who "collate" the entries for "publication" (at the end of a turn). These Encyclopedants would serve as the "voice of cohesion", and really fill a void that the Ghyll Lexicon is missing: an existing backdrop to base entries on. Other Lexicons were based on existing worlds (Paranoia, Exalted, Nobilis), and thus, the "voice of cohesion" concerning stuff like dates, geography, races, etc. were the original books the games were derived from. There's none of that in Ghyll. For instance, sometime soon, the Encyclopedants will release a document, in-game, on how scholars should handle dates. This would be some sort of "Progress Report Issue 1", where # is the # of the turn in question. Ultimately, the topics discussed in these Progress Reports would be about the integrity of the encyclopedia itself: continuity errors, worrisome plot holes, and etc. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As for a scholarly F2F, I like that idea, and I think the best way to approximate that would be a sort of "in-game" Lexicon discussion. The Encyclopedants could release a Progress Report detailing worries they're having, and other scholars could log their own complaints and concerns on the Progress Report page itself. This would keep everything centralized, and would be a more vocal, less-controlled [[Current events]] (a "current in-game events") page. I think it'd also be handy, upon reaching Z, for scholars and the Encyclopedants to prepare a personal "Final Report", discussing how they felt things went, what could be done better for the next Round, and so on and so forth. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Other Threads===<br />
<br />
''Got some comments or questions? Add 'em here!''<br />
<br />
Er, okay, so can we refer to our own characters as the inventors of something? By that I mean, if my character invented a new sight for the smooth-bore musket, could I make an entry based on that? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sure, there's nothing stopping you from doing that, but by making yourself an official part of the canon (as opposed to non-canon Scholar bios), you make yourself liable to follow other people's truths. It'd be possible to kill you off, and yadda yadda yadda. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 14:28, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, as long as I can make contributions from beyond the grave, or at least through posthumous notes, I might be okay with that.<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:32, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is a danger I did not foresee. In the Bobby Shwarmph entry, I included a reference that incorporated Scholar Edward Schwarmph into the canon, assuming that since he phantomed the entry and that he studies a field linked closely to that covered by the magazine edited by the character he created with the same surname, they were related. If I put him in danger in the process, that was probably a breach of courtesy. While I suppose there is nothing stopping any of us from embarking on studies to be discovered after our deaths, there is probably a better way to handle this. A later entry could establish a conduit of communication with dead scholars and other Ghyllians, but then we wouldn't have to do research at all- we'd just get a soul who was there on the line to offer their take on things. I suggest we treat bios as canonical, and all characters are "in game," and hence fair game. Then, if a scholar is killed off and its player cares to continue, the player creates a successor- say a favored student or offspring -poised to continue the work. If players are non-canon, I should either delete the Edward reference in the Bobby Shwarmph entry, be referring to someone else entirely who coincidentally has the exact same name and job, or at least get my fellow scholar'a permission before something unfortunate occurs to him as a result of my entering him into canon without his express consent.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to another question- presuming events are unfolding in our world even as more entries are written, we might run into situations where an entry is obsolete or needs updating based on events that hadn't happened yet,<br />
or information only discovered after it was written. Therefore, should we be dating our entries to avoid confusion? (ie: last updated 0/09/1 EC by Bast ResNovae)--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 20:40, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
====Correction of spelling and typos====<br />
<br />
What is general etiquette on the correction of spelling and typos in entries other than mine? (not that either my spelling or typing is perfect, but I assume nobody objects if I correct myself)?<br />
--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If it's definitely an error, please go ahead and correct it! As long as you don't change the semantics of someone's entry, you can certainly change the syntax to make it easier to read, clearer, etc. Imagine you're correcting someone's English paper: you're not going to do their work for them, but you want to let them know that it's "i before e except after c and except in wierd words such as weird". --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 14:09, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Useful Resources==<br />
<br />
You can use this [http://www.fourteenminutes.com/fun/words/ random word generator] to generate entry names that begin with a specified pair of letters. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 17:07, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You may also make use of generators found here [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/ Chris Pound's Name Generation Page], particularly, [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/#werd werd], for names. (Look for the examples of Victorian English names.)<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:01, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Lexicon_discussion&diff=26580Ghyll:Lexicon discussion2004-09-14T00:44:18Z<p>Bast ResNovae: /* Other Threads */</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__ <br />
<br />
If you've any questions or suggestions about the wiki and its syntax, the Lexicon rules, Ghyll continuity errors, letting us know you're gonna miss a turn, etc., use this page to wax poetic. Be sure to sign your name (using either the second - from - the - right toolbar icon, or typing two hyphens and four tildes), which also includes the timestamp. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 11:32, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Frequently Asked Questions==<br />
<br />
===How do I dib an entry (cf. Rule 1)?===<br />
If there is a specific phantom you'd like to write, wait until the proper turn occurs (ie. waiting for the "R" turn to dib phantom "Rancor") and then edit the phantom to just include a statement of dibbing ("MIIine! ALlL MiIInnE!") and your name/signature. Naturally, the intent of dibbing an entry is so that you actually write it - if you don't during that turn, your dib expires. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Can I cite more than I'm required to cite? (cf. Rule 2)===<br />
Each turn after the first, you're required to cite two phantom entries and one existing entry. Neither of these three citations can be terms you've created or written. However, if you've properly met these requirements, your entry can certainly refer to other terms in the Ghyll encyclopedia, including those you've personally written. These "other terms", however, MUST have been previously defined or created. See the [[Ghyll Index]] for a complete list of in-play terms. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===What happens about linking to widely-used terms?===<br />
It may often be the case that terms are used throughout the dictionary that are not cited initially: you're allowed to invent people, places, etc. that you don't actually cite a reference for. That means that later in the game, people can write about these people, and references can be strewn across the wiki that don't actively ''link'' to the phantom. How is the person to be able to research the references? The general rule of thumb is that when you create a term that you know has been mentioned elsewhere, either you go about looking for existing references and link them, or the admins do it for you. [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Comments, Questions, Complaints?==<br />
<br />
===Alternate Reality vs. Fictional World===<br />
Hello people. This looks like a nice game- but I think I got the rules a little wrong in my enthusiasm to get started, entry: anabiscot) by putting more "phantoms" into my entry than were asked for, and by fleshing one or two of them out. I find it impossible to backtrack on the fleshing out, and so a) don't know what to do about them, as I don't want to upeset anyone by not having strictly observed the rules for the first turn and b) wonder whether clearer guidance to newcomers is needed if this isn't to be a closed shop just for oldophytes --[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 05:28, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: we're open to newcomers, definitely. As for the rules, check out #1: "Scholars ... write one entry per turn" and then #2: "Entries shall cite two phantom entries". I've deleted all your out of turn entries, so there's no worries there (to return an entry to a phantom, just click the "delete" button as opposed to "edit", and give a reason for the deletion). Let me know which part of the rules initially confused you. We'll be adding an "Example of a Turn" to the main page shortly. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Finally, and sadly, I've deleted your Anabiscot entry for being too much of an "Earth-parody". It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper that was revised to include "made up" words as opposed to their Earthen counterparts (as seen in your revising of "England" to "Ghyll", and the inclusion of Christian, Protestant, University of Helsinki, etc., etc.). Based on your timpstamps, I can appreciate how this deletion must look compared to your two hours of editing. But, it's really not the sort of material we're looking for. Think "when we crossed the threshold, I hit my new bride's head on the door jamb, and in her ensuing mental insanity, she described something that'd sounds just like Ghyll's [NameOfEntry]" as opposed to "What have I written already that I can modify for the game?" --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The new entry on the EXAMPLE OF PLAY page is certainly much clearer than the previous offering, and is to be commended. Had that been there, I would not have stumbled as I did this morning. But the comment on my deleted entry "it's not really what we're looking for" is rather telling, and is telling me to be on my way nevertheless. "It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper..etc" also clearly reveals that you see your position as an empowered subeditor of sorts, who has the role of judging text quality; fair game -it's your server, you call the shots. But to this newcomer (a professional writer who wasted words this morning just for fun, and who hasn't written a term paper in over thirty years!) it nevertheless seems a great pity, because the game is a nice idea. Applying the wiki to what used to be called four-handed writing would allow the natural numerical limits of collaborative collective writing to over-bound. But in fact you're not open to newcomers at all, despite the protestations....but it was an interesting try.--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 17:49, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: there's been a lot of off-wiki discussion about how this game should unfold, comprising nine months of a lot of arguing, a lot of ideas and scanty documentation, and a lot of ideas that it's going to be difficult to crystallise on the wiki quickly. I, personally, think that your entries were marvellous, but in the context of the direction that we're trying to develop for this wiki they're not <em>quite</em> what we're after. In other words, we're opening this up very much on the ground floor and trying to establish the past that we have, so you'll have to excuse the odd bit of seemingly baseless "oh no, that's not the way it should be done" banter. Imagine if you'd come into a game that's been running for nearly a year, and there were a lot of dedicated players and in-game jokes and conventions already. That basically <em>is</em> the situation here to some extent, we just haven't been able to document it properly yet, and we're also in a stage of "well, let's see what other people think". Some things are very much negotiable, and some aren't. Anyway, I hope that you'll consider still joining in and being patient with us as we work through this nascent stage, because I think your entries showed an enthusiasm and quality that it would be sad for us to miss out on. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I've sent Ginestre a longer email on the subject, but the distinction I made with my actions was one of "fictional world" versus "alternate reality." It was our intent for Ghyll to be a "fictional world", one that has little semblance to the "real" world, namely Earth. While we realize this can be an impossibility, as creativity is emboldened in what we know, we wanted to stay away from what we call an "Earth parody" - a world that has direct, obvious, and blatant parallels to our own - more of an "alternate reality" as opposed to "fictional world". LORD OF THE RINGS is a "fictional world", whereas the Sci-Fi show SLIDERS is an alternate reality, as are the TWILIGHT ZONE, THE OUTER LIMITS, and so forth. Which isn't to say that I'm against equivalency - in the early game, newspaper, magnetism, war, research organizations, basements, "flash lights/beacons", etc. already exist. But they're described in an environment of "fictional world" not "alternate reality". As for judging text or entry quality, honestly, I'd like to stay as far away from that as possible. Again, the distinction made with your entry was one of "Earth parody" and not "fictional world." --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:20, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Non-turn Activities===<br />
Morbus: What're we doing with respect to canonical but non-turn activities? There's the possibility of the Encyclopedants mailing out letters to all the scholars as you discussed, but did we talk about a per-turn summary too? I think it'd be helpful in that it'd make us analyse what's currently being worked on to ensure its consistency, as well as helping newcomers to the game and people who have been on holiday etc. It could be a collaborative effort between all the scholars who contributed to the first turn, and it might actually serve to clarify some of the intentions etc. behind the entries. I'm not sure what framework could be used to justify it in terms of the game itself though; perhaps the scholars all meet up in a F2F meeting somewhere in a different location per turn? We could order it as though it's meeting minutes: have a little abstract of the location that we met at, introduce some of the scholars, have dialogue, and then the main summary of what's been written. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 17:46, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My personal in-game plan was, as you mention, the Encyclopedants - the people who are "funding" the encyclopedia and who "collate" the entries for "publication" (at the end of a turn). These Encyclopedants would serve as the "voice of cohesion", and really fill a void that the Ghyll Lexicon is missing: an existing backdrop to base entries on. Other Lexicons were based on existing worlds (Paranoia, Exalted, Nobilis), and thus, the "voice of cohesion" concerning stuff like dates, geography, races, etc. were the original books the games were derived from. There's none of that in Ghyll. For instance, sometime soon, the Encyclopedants will release a document, in-game, on how scholars should handle dates. This would be some sort of "Progress Report Issue 1", where # is the # of the turn in question. Ultimately, the topics discussed in these Progress Reports would be about the integrity of the encyclopedia itself: continuity errors, worrisome plot holes, and etc. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As for a scholarly F2F, I like that idea, and I think the best way to approximate that would be a sort of "in-game" Lexicon discussion. The Encyclopedants could release a Progress Report detailing worries they're having, and other scholars could log their own complaints and concerns on the Progress Report page itself. This would keep everything centralized, and would be a more vocal, less-controlled [[Current events]] (a "current in-game events") page. I think it'd also be handy, upon reaching Z, for scholars and the Encyclopedants to prepare a personal "Final Report", discussing how they felt things went, what could be done better for the next Round, and so on and so forth. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Other Threads===<br />
<br />
''Got some comments or questions? Add 'em here!''<br />
<br />
Er, okay, so can we refer to our own characters as the inventors of something? By that I mean, if my character invented a new sight for the smooth-bore musket, could I make an entry based on that? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sure, there's nothing stopping you from doing that, but by making yourself an official part of the canon (as opposed to non-canon Scholar bios), you make yourself liable to follow other people's truths. It'd be possible to kill you off, and yadda yadda yadda. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 14:28, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, as long as I can make contributions from beyond the grave, or at least through posthumous notes, I might be okay with that.<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:32, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is a danger I did not foresee. In the Bobby Shwarmph entry, I included a reference that incorporated Scholar Edward Schwarmph into the canon, assuming that since he phantomed the entry and that he studies a field linked closely to that covered by the magazine edited by the character he created with the same surname, they were related. If I put him in danger in the process, that was probably a breach of courtesy. While I suppose there is nothing stopping any of us from embarking on studies to be discovered after our deaths, there is probably a better way to handle this. A later entry could establish a conduit of communication with dead scholars and other Ghyllians, but then we wouldn't have to do research at all- we'd just get a soul who was there on the line to offer their take on things. I suggest we treat bios as canonical, and all characters are "in game," and hence fair game. Then, if a scholar is killed off and its player cares to continue, the player creates a successor- say a favored student or offspring -poised to continue the work. If players are non-canon, I should either delete the Edward reference in the Bobby Shwarmph entry, be referring to someone else entirely who coincidentally has the exact same name and job, or at least get my fellow scholar'a permission before something unfortunate occurs to him as a result of my entering him into canon without his express consent.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to another question- presuming events are unfolding in our world even as more entries are written, we might run into situations where an entry is obsolete or needs updating based on events that hadn't happened yet,<br />
or information only discovered after it was written. Therefore, should we be dating our entries to avoid confusion? (ie: last updated 0/09/1 [[EC]] by [[User:Bast Resnovae|Bast ResNovae]])--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 20:40, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
====Correction of spelling and typos====<br />
<br />
What is general etiquette on the correction of spelling and typos in entries other than mine? (not that either my spelling or typing is perfect, but I assume nobody objects if I correct myself)?<br />
--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If it's definitely an error, please go ahead and correct it! As long as you don't change the semantics of someone's entry, you can certainly change the syntax to make it easier to read, clearer, etc. Imagine you're correcting someone's English paper: you're not going to do their work for them, but you want to let them know that it's "i before e except after c and except in wierd words such as weird". --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 14:09, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Useful Resources==<br />
<br />
You can use this [http://www.fourteenminutes.com/fun/words/ random word generator] to generate entry names that begin with a specified pair of letters. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 17:07, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You may also make use of generators found here [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/ Chris Pound's Name Generation Page], particularly, [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/#werd werd], for names. (Look for the examples of Victorian English names.)<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:01, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Lexicon_discussion&diff=26579Ghyll:Lexicon discussion2004-09-14T00:43:34Z<p>Bast ResNovae: /* Other Threads */</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__ <br />
<br />
If you've any questions or suggestions about the wiki and its syntax, the Lexicon rules, Ghyll continuity errors, letting us know you're gonna miss a turn, etc., use this page to wax poetic. Be sure to sign your name (using either the second - from - the - right toolbar icon, or typing two hyphens and four tildes), which also includes the timestamp. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 11:32, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Frequently Asked Questions==<br />
<br />
===How do I dib an entry (cf. Rule 1)?===<br />
If there is a specific phantom you'd like to write, wait until the proper turn occurs (ie. waiting for the "R" turn to dib phantom "Rancor") and then edit the phantom to just include a statement of dibbing ("MIIine! ALlL MiIInnE!") and your name/signature. Naturally, the intent of dibbing an entry is so that you actually write it - if you don't during that turn, your dib expires. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Can I cite more than I'm required to cite? (cf. Rule 2)===<br />
Each turn after the first, you're required to cite two phantom entries and one existing entry. Neither of these three citations can be terms you've created or written. However, if you've properly met these requirements, your entry can certainly refer to other terms in the Ghyll encyclopedia, including those you've personally written. These "other terms", however, MUST have been previously defined or created. See the [[Ghyll Index]] for a complete list of in-play terms. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===What happens about linking to widely-used terms?===<br />
It may often be the case that terms are used throughout the dictionary that are not cited initially: you're allowed to invent people, places, etc. that you don't actually cite a reference for. That means that later in the game, people can write about these people, and references can be strewn across the wiki that don't actively ''link'' to the phantom. How is the person to be able to research the references? The general rule of thumb is that when you create a term that you know has been mentioned elsewhere, either you go about looking for existing references and link them, or the admins do it for you. [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Comments, Questions, Complaints?==<br />
<br />
===Alternate Reality vs. Fictional World===<br />
Hello people. This looks like a nice game- but I think I got the rules a little wrong in my enthusiasm to get started, entry: anabiscot) by putting more "phantoms" into my entry than were asked for, and by fleshing one or two of them out. I find it impossible to backtrack on the fleshing out, and so a) don't know what to do about them, as I don't want to upeset anyone by not having strictly observed the rules for the first turn and b) wonder whether clearer guidance to newcomers is needed if this isn't to be a closed shop just for oldophytes --[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 05:28, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: we're open to newcomers, definitely. As for the rules, check out #1: "Scholars ... write one entry per turn" and then #2: "Entries shall cite two phantom entries". I've deleted all your out of turn entries, so there's no worries there (to return an entry to a phantom, just click the "delete" button as opposed to "edit", and give a reason for the deletion). Let me know which part of the rules initially confused you. We'll be adding an "Example of a Turn" to the main page shortly. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Finally, and sadly, I've deleted your Anabiscot entry for being too much of an "Earth-parody". It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper that was revised to include "made up" words as opposed to their Earthen counterparts (as seen in your revising of "England" to "Ghyll", and the inclusion of Christian, Protestant, University of Helsinki, etc., etc.). Based on your timpstamps, I can appreciate how this deletion must look compared to your two hours of editing. But, it's really not the sort of material we're looking for. Think "when we crossed the threshold, I hit my new bride's head on the door jamb, and in her ensuing mental insanity, she described something that'd sounds just like Ghyll's [NameOfEntry]" as opposed to "What have I written already that I can modify for the game?" --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The new entry on the EXAMPLE OF PLAY page is certainly much clearer than the previous offering, and is to be commended. Had that been there, I would not have stumbled as I did this morning. But the comment on my deleted entry "it's not really what we're looking for" is rather telling, and is telling me to be on my way nevertheless. "It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper..etc" also clearly reveals that you see your position as an empowered subeditor of sorts, who has the role of judging text quality; fair game -it's your server, you call the shots. But to this newcomer (a professional writer who wasted words this morning just for fun, and who hasn't written a term paper in over thirty years!) it nevertheless seems a great pity, because the game is a nice idea. Applying the wiki to what used to be called four-handed writing would allow the natural numerical limits of collaborative collective writing to over-bound. But in fact you're not open to newcomers at all, despite the protestations....but it was an interesting try.--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 17:49, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: there's been a lot of off-wiki discussion about how this game should unfold, comprising nine months of a lot of arguing, a lot of ideas and scanty documentation, and a lot of ideas that it's going to be difficult to crystallise on the wiki quickly. I, personally, think that your entries were marvellous, but in the context of the direction that we're trying to develop for this wiki they're not <em>quite</em> what we're after. In other words, we're opening this up very much on the ground floor and trying to establish the past that we have, so you'll have to excuse the odd bit of seemingly baseless "oh no, that's not the way it should be done" banter. Imagine if you'd come into a game that's been running for nearly a year, and there were a lot of dedicated players and in-game jokes and conventions already. That basically <em>is</em> the situation here to some extent, we just haven't been able to document it properly yet, and we're also in a stage of "well, let's see what other people think". Some things are very much negotiable, and some aren't. Anyway, I hope that you'll consider still joining in and being patient with us as we work through this nascent stage, because I think your entries showed an enthusiasm and quality that it would be sad for us to miss out on. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I've sent Ginestre a longer email on the subject, but the distinction I made with my actions was one of "fictional world" versus "alternate reality." It was our intent for Ghyll to be a "fictional world", one that has little semblance to the "real" world, namely Earth. While we realize this can be an impossibility, as creativity is emboldened in what we know, we wanted to stay away from what we call an "Earth parody" - a world that has direct, obvious, and blatant parallels to our own - more of an "alternate reality" as opposed to "fictional world". LORD OF THE RINGS is a "fictional world", whereas the Sci-Fi show SLIDERS is an alternate reality, as are the TWILIGHT ZONE, THE OUTER LIMITS, and so forth. Which isn't to say that I'm against equivalency - in the early game, newspaper, magnetism, war, research organizations, basements, "flash lights/beacons", etc. already exist. But they're described in an environment of "fictional world" not "alternate reality". As for judging text or entry quality, honestly, I'd like to stay as far away from that as possible. Again, the distinction made with your entry was one of "Earth parody" and not "fictional world." --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:20, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Non-turn Activities===<br />
Morbus: What're we doing with respect to canonical but non-turn activities? There's the possibility of the Encyclopedants mailing out letters to all the scholars as you discussed, but did we talk about a per-turn summary too? I think it'd be helpful in that it'd make us analyse what's currently being worked on to ensure its consistency, as well as helping newcomers to the game and people who have been on holiday etc. It could be a collaborative effort between all the scholars who contributed to the first turn, and it might actually serve to clarify some of the intentions etc. behind the entries. I'm not sure what framework could be used to justify it in terms of the game itself though; perhaps the scholars all meet up in a F2F meeting somewhere in a different location per turn? We could order it as though it's meeting minutes: have a little abstract of the location that we met at, introduce some of the scholars, have dialogue, and then the main summary of what's been written. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 17:46, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My personal in-game plan was, as you mention, the Encyclopedants - the people who are "funding" the encyclopedia and who "collate" the entries for "publication" (at the end of a turn). These Encyclopedants would serve as the "voice of cohesion", and really fill a void that the Ghyll Lexicon is missing: an existing backdrop to base entries on. Other Lexicons were based on existing worlds (Paranoia, Exalted, Nobilis), and thus, the "voice of cohesion" concerning stuff like dates, geography, races, etc. were the original books the games were derived from. There's none of that in Ghyll. For instance, sometime soon, the Encyclopedants will release a document, in-game, on how scholars should handle dates. This would be some sort of "Progress Report Issue 1", where # is the # of the turn in question. Ultimately, the topics discussed in these Progress Reports would be about the integrity of the encyclopedia itself: continuity errors, worrisome plot holes, and etc. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As for a scholarly F2F, I like that idea, and I think the best way to approximate that would be a sort of "in-game" Lexicon discussion. The Encyclopedants could release a Progress Report detailing worries they're having, and other scholars could log their own complaints and concerns on the Progress Report page itself. This would keep everything centralized, and would be a more vocal, less-controlled [[Current events]] (a "current in-game events") page. I think it'd also be handy, upon reaching Z, for scholars and the Encyclopedants to prepare a personal "Final Report", discussing how they felt things went, what could be done better for the next Round, and so on and so forth. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Other Threads===<br />
<br />
''Got some comments or questions? Add 'em here!''<br />
<br />
Er, okay, so can we refer to our own characters as the inventors of something? By that I mean, if my character invented a new sight for the smooth-bore musket, could I make an entry based on that? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sure, there's nothing stopping you from doing that, but by making yourself an official part of the canon (as opposed to non-canon Scholar bios), you make yourself liable to follow other people's truths. It'd be possible to kill you off, and yadda yadda yadda. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 14:28, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, as long as I can make contributions from beyond the grave, or at least through posthumous notes, I might be okay with that.<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:32, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is a danger I did not foresee. In the Bobby Shwarmph entry, I included a reference that incorporated Scholar Edward Schwarmph into the canon, assuming that since he phantomed the entry and that he studies a field linked closely to that covered by the magazine edited by the character he created with the same surname, they were related. If I put him in danger in the process, that was probably a breach of courtesy. While I suppose there is nothing stopping any of us from embarking on studies to be discovered after our deaths, there is probably a better way to handle this. A later entry could establish a conduit of communication with dead scholars and other Ghyllians, but then we wouldn't have to do research at all- we'd just get a soul who was there on the line to offer their take on things. I suggest we treat bios as canonical, and all characters are "in game," and hence fair game. Then, if a scholar is killed off and its player cares to continue, the player creates a successor- say a favored student or offspring -poised to continue the work. If players are non-canon, I should either delete the Edward reference in the Bobby Shwarmph entry, be referring to someone else entirely who coincidentally has the exact same name and job, or at least get my fellow scholar'a permission before something unfortunate occurs to him as a result of my entering him into canon without his express consent.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to another question- presuming events are unfolding in our world even as more entries are written, we might run into situations where an entry is obsolete or needs updating based on events that hadn't happened yet,<br />
or information only discovered after it was written. Therefore, should we be dating our entries to avoid confusion? (ie: last updated 0/09/1 [[EC]] by [[User:Bast Resnovae|Bast ResNovae)]]--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 20:40, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
====Correction of spelling and typos====<br />
<br />
What is general etiquette on the correction of spelling and typos in entries other than mine? (not that either my spelling or typing is perfect, but I assume nobody objects if I correct myself)?<br />
--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If it's definitely an error, please go ahead and correct it! As long as you don't change the semantics of someone's entry, you can certainly change the syntax to make it easier to read, clearer, etc. Imagine you're correcting someone's English paper: you're not going to do their work for them, but you want to let them know that it's "i before e except after c and except in wierd words such as weird". --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 14:09, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Useful Resources==<br />
<br />
You can use this [http://www.fourteenminutes.com/fun/words/ random word generator] to generate entry names that begin with a specified pair of letters. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 17:07, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You may also make use of generators found here [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/ Chris Pound's Name Generation Page], particularly, [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/#werd werd], for names. (Look for the examples of Victorian English names.)<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:01, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Lexicon_discussion&diff=26578Ghyll:Lexicon discussion2004-09-14T00:40:46Z<p>Bast ResNovae: breach of ettiquette?</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__ <br />
<br />
If you've any questions or suggestions about the wiki and its syntax, the Lexicon rules, Ghyll continuity errors, letting us know you're gonna miss a turn, etc., use this page to wax poetic. Be sure to sign your name (using either the second - from - the - right toolbar icon, or typing two hyphens and four tildes), which also includes the timestamp. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 11:32, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Frequently Asked Questions==<br />
<br />
===How do I dib an entry (cf. Rule 1)?===<br />
If there is a specific phantom you'd like to write, wait until the proper turn occurs (ie. waiting for the "R" turn to dib phantom "Rancor") and then edit the phantom to just include a statement of dibbing ("MIIine! ALlL MiIInnE!") and your name/signature. Naturally, the intent of dibbing an entry is so that you actually write it - if you don't during that turn, your dib expires. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Can I cite more than I'm required to cite? (cf. Rule 2)===<br />
Each turn after the first, you're required to cite two phantom entries and one existing entry. Neither of these three citations can be terms you've created or written. However, if you've properly met these requirements, your entry can certainly refer to other terms in the Ghyll encyclopedia, including those you've personally written. These "other terms", however, MUST have been previously defined or created. See the [[Ghyll Index]] for a complete list of in-play terms. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===What happens about linking to widely-used terms?===<br />
It may often be the case that terms are used throughout the dictionary that are not cited initially: you're allowed to invent people, places, etc. that you don't actually cite a reference for. That means that later in the game, people can write about these people, and references can be strewn across the wiki that don't actively ''link'' to the phantom. How is the person to be able to research the references? The general rule of thumb is that when you create a term that you know has been mentioned elsewhere, either you go about looking for existing references and link them, or the admins do it for you. [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Comments, Questions, Complaints?==<br />
<br />
===Alternate Reality vs. Fictional World===<br />
Hello people. This looks like a nice game- but I think I got the rules a little wrong in my enthusiasm to get started, entry: anabiscot) by putting more "phantoms" into my entry than were asked for, and by fleshing one or two of them out. I find it impossible to backtrack on the fleshing out, and so a) don't know what to do about them, as I don't want to upeset anyone by not having strictly observed the rules for the first turn and b) wonder whether clearer guidance to newcomers is needed if this isn't to be a closed shop just for oldophytes --[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 05:28, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: we're open to newcomers, definitely. As for the rules, check out #1: "Scholars ... write one entry per turn" and then #2: "Entries shall cite two phantom entries". I've deleted all your out of turn entries, so there's no worries there (to return an entry to a phantom, just click the "delete" button as opposed to "edit", and give a reason for the deletion). Let me know which part of the rules initially confused you. We'll be adding an "Example of a Turn" to the main page shortly. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Finally, and sadly, I've deleted your Anabiscot entry for being too much of an "Earth-parody". It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper that was revised to include "made up" words as opposed to their Earthen counterparts (as seen in your revising of "England" to "Ghyll", and the inclusion of Christian, Protestant, University of Helsinki, etc., etc.). Based on your timpstamps, I can appreciate how this deletion must look compared to your two hours of editing. But, it's really not the sort of material we're looking for. Think "when we crossed the threshold, I hit my new bride's head on the door jamb, and in her ensuing mental insanity, she described something that'd sounds just like Ghyll's [NameOfEntry]" as opposed to "What have I written already that I can modify for the game?" --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The new entry on the EXAMPLE OF PLAY page is certainly much clearer than the previous offering, and is to be commended. Had that been there, I would not have stumbled as I did this morning. But the comment on my deleted entry "it's not really what we're looking for" is rather telling, and is telling me to be on my way nevertheless. "It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper..etc" also clearly reveals that you see your position as an empowered subeditor of sorts, who has the role of judging text quality; fair game -it's your server, you call the shots. But to this newcomer (a professional writer who wasted words this morning just for fun, and who hasn't written a term paper in over thirty years!) it nevertheless seems a great pity, because the game is a nice idea. Applying the wiki to what used to be called four-handed writing would allow the natural numerical limits of collaborative collective writing to over-bound. But in fact you're not open to newcomers at all, despite the protestations....but it was an interesting try.--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 17:49, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ginestre: there's been a lot of off-wiki discussion about how this game should unfold, comprising nine months of a lot of arguing, a lot of ideas and scanty documentation, and a lot of ideas that it's going to be difficult to crystallise on the wiki quickly. I, personally, think that your entries were marvellous, but in the context of the direction that we're trying to develop for this wiki they're not <em>quite</em> what we're after. In other words, we're opening this up very much on the ground floor and trying to establish the past that we have, so you'll have to excuse the odd bit of seemingly baseless "oh no, that's not the way it should be done" banter. Imagine if you'd come into a game that's been running for nearly a year, and there were a lot of dedicated players and in-game jokes and conventions already. That basically <em>is</em> the situation here to some extent, we just haven't been able to document it properly yet, and we're also in a stage of "well, let's see what other people think". Some things are very much negotiable, and some aren't. Anyway, I hope that you'll consider still joining in and being patient with us as we work through this nascent stage, because I think your entries showed an enthusiasm and quality that it would be sad for us to miss out on. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I've sent Ginestre a longer email on the subject, but the distinction I made with my actions was one of "fictional world" versus "alternate reality." It was our intent for Ghyll to be a "fictional world", one that has little semblance to the "real" world, namely Earth. While we realize this can be an impossibility, as creativity is emboldened in what we know, we wanted to stay away from what we call an "Earth parody" - a world that has direct, obvious, and blatant parallels to our own - more of an "alternate reality" as opposed to "fictional world". LORD OF THE RINGS is a "fictional world", whereas the Sci-Fi show SLIDERS is an alternate reality, as are the TWILIGHT ZONE, THE OUTER LIMITS, and so forth. Which isn't to say that I'm against equivalency - in the early game, newspaper, magnetism, war, research organizations, basements, "flash lights/beacons", etc. already exist. But they're described in an environment of "fictional world" not "alternate reality". As for judging text or entry quality, honestly, I'd like to stay as far away from that as possible. Again, the distinction made with your entry was one of "Earth parody" and not "fictional world." --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:20, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Non-turn Activities===<br />
Morbus: What're we doing with respect to canonical but non-turn activities? There's the possibility of the Encyclopedants mailing out letters to all the scholars as you discussed, but did we talk about a per-turn summary too? I think it'd be helpful in that it'd make us analyse what's currently being worked on to ensure its consistency, as well as helping newcomers to the game and people who have been on holiday etc. It could be a collaborative effort between all the scholars who contributed to the first turn, and it might actually serve to clarify some of the intentions etc. behind the entries. I'm not sure what framework could be used to justify it in terms of the game itself though; perhaps the scholars all meet up in a F2F meeting somewhere in a different location per turn? We could order it as though it's meeting minutes: have a little abstract of the location that we met at, introduce some of the scholars, have dialogue, and then the main summary of what's been written. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 17:46, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My personal in-game plan was, as you mention, the Encyclopedants - the people who are "funding" the encyclopedia and who "collate" the entries for "publication" (at the end of a turn). These Encyclopedants would serve as the "voice of cohesion", and really fill a void that the Ghyll Lexicon is missing: an existing backdrop to base entries on. Other Lexicons were based on existing worlds (Paranoia, Exalted, Nobilis), and thus, the "voice of cohesion" concerning stuff like dates, geography, races, etc. were the original books the games were derived from. There's none of that in Ghyll. For instance, sometime soon, the Encyclopedants will release a document, in-game, on how scholars should handle dates. This would be some sort of "Progress Report Issue 1", where # is the # of the turn in question. Ultimately, the topics discussed in these Progress Reports would be about the integrity of the encyclopedia itself: continuity errors, worrisome plot holes, and etc. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As for a scholarly F2F, I like that idea, and I think the best way to approximate that would be a sort of "in-game" Lexicon discussion. The Encyclopedants could release a Progress Report detailing worries they're having, and other scholars could log their own complaints and concerns on the Progress Report page itself. This would keep everything centralized, and would be a more vocal, less-controlled [[Current events]] (a "current in-game events") page. I think it'd also be handy, upon reaching Z, for scholars and the Encyclopedants to prepare a personal "Final Report", discussing how they felt things went, what could be done better for the next Round, and so on and so forth. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Other Threads===<br />
<br />
''Got some comments or questions? Add 'em here!''<br />
<br />
Er, okay, so can we refer to our own characters as the inventors of something? By that I mean, if my character invented a new sight for the smooth-bore musket, could I make an entry based on that? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sure, there's nothing stopping you from doing that, but by making yourself an official part of the canon (as opposed to non-canon Scholar bios), you make yourself liable to follow other people's truths. It'd be possible to kill you off, and yadda yadda yadda. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 14:28, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, as long as I can make contributions from beyond the grave, or at least through posthumous notes, I might be okay with that.<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:32, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That is a danger I did not foresee. In the Bobby Shwarmph entry, I included a reference that incorporated Scholar Edward Schwarmph into the canon, assuming that since he phantomed the entry and that he studies a field linked closely to that covered by the magazine edited by the character he created with the same surname, they were related. If I put him in danger in the process, that was probably a breach of courtesy. While I suppose there is nothing stopping any of us from embarking on studies to be discovered after our deaths, there is probably a better way to handle this. A later entry could establish a conduit of communication with dead scholars and other Ghyllians, but then we wouldn't have to do research at all- we'd just get a soul who was there on the line to offer their take on things. I suggest we treat bios as canonical, and all characters are "in game," and hence fair game. Then, if a scholar is killed off and its player cares to continue, the player creates a successor- say a favored student or offspring -poised to continue the work. If players are non-canon, I should either delete the Edward reference in the Bobby Shwarmph entry, be referring to someone else entirely who coincidentally has the exact same name and job, or at least get my fellow scholar'a permission before something unfortunate occurs to him as a resul of my entering him into canon without his express consent.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to another question- presuming events are unfolding in our world even as more entries are written, we might run into situations where an entry is obsolete or needs updating based on events that hadn't happened yet,<br />
or information only discovered after it was written. Therefore, should we be dating our entries to avoid confusion? (ie: last updated 0/09/1 [[EC]] by Bast Resnovae|Bast ResNovae)--[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 20:40, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
====Correction of spelling and typos====<br />
<br />
What is general etiquette on the correction of spelling and typos in entries other than mine? (not that either my spelling or typing is perfect, but I assume nobody objects if I correct myself)?<br />
--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If it's definitely an error, please go ahead and correct it! As long as you don't change the semantics of someone's entry, you can certainly change the syntax to make it easier to read, clearer, etc. Imagine you're correcting someone's English paper: you're not going to do their work for them, but you want to let them know that it's "i before e except after c and except in wierd words such as weird". --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 14:09, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Useful Resources==<br />
<br />
You can use this [http://www.fourteenminutes.com/fun/words/ random word generator] to generate entry names that begin with a specified pair of letters. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 17:07, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You may also make use of generators found here [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/ Chris Pound's Name Generation Page], particularly, [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/#werd werd], for names. (Look for the examples of Victorian English names.)<br />
--[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 14:01, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Battle_of_Barnum_Stones&diff=28036Ghyll talk:Battle of Barnum Stones2004-09-14T00:07:44Z<p>Bast ResNovae: /* more nitpicking- smilcher vs carnoralist vs ?*/</p>
<hr />
<div>==Out-Of-Game Discussion==<br />
<br />
It came out longer than expected, as the bishop once said......--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 06:20, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
There appears to be some problem - Andelphracian Lights were created by Andelphracia, who would have only been 5 years old in -325 EC. It's hard to think that she would have created the lights, and for them to have enough gestation to be the cause of a battle. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 13:14, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not sure on this- doesn't the entry use Andelphracian Lights as a common modern example of smilching? Perhaps these smilchers practiced a very primitive form of smilching- firey sticks or some such? Unfortunately, this ancient history is outside my area of expertise. But I am looking forward to hearing those more learned about this ancient era elaborate. When dealing with ancient dates from the time of legend though, it wouldn't surprising if there would be some difficulty defining a date so precisely... but I think for this layperson, the crux that needs clarifying in this entry is: did this war precede Andelphracia's discovery, or did in fact her new, superior smilching method predicate it? --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 14:40, 13 Sep 2004<br />
<br />
Hmm, I guess I can see that particular approach. Is that your intention, Gineste? There seems to be a lot of flexibility on a quick re-scan: these battles could still be going on, no master smilching technique has been agreed upon, and so on and so forth. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 14:53, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
That's the way I see it; I wanted to link in, but not explicitly or overtly, a number of strands, whilst leaving space for others to digress upon... my strands are 1) a clear relation between andelphracian lights and altoxian bulbs; 2) our lack of information about so many things ancient, which urgently needs at least the framework of an explanation, and so conflict and iconoclasm sprang to mind (the Raking, etc.); and 3) the desire to see some discussion of the physical (ie scientific) structure of this world-what is the underlying unity? how does obith relate light to noise, if that's what it is? But principally it just sort of came out... Let me also add that I don't think the entry places any temporal reference between Andelphracian lights and the battle; but others might have further information on this score. --[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 15:08, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What's ''(fit 7 lines 1124-1127 in my published transcription of Dunby’s transliteration)'' mean? --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:21, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Fascinating. My only complaint is a minor error in your manuscript. You write: ''"Scholars have long wrangled over who or what could have originally summoned two neighbouring clans, the Exingians and the Looliers, to the Barnum Stones on the pretext of a peaceful contest to decide whose smilch was the most powerful,"'' But you introduce the subject by saying ''"not only were both the traditional producers of light (“smilchers”) and of ritual music (“canoralists”) constrained ... but also the underlying unity of the separate phenomena was so far from being even suspected that bloody battles were fought to uphold the superiority of one procedure over another. The most celebrated of these battles is almost certainly the Battle of Barnum Stones"'' If that premise is correct, I presume the contest was in fact one of smilchers vs. canoralists, and not competing smilchers, with a third party of some unknown affiliation? Or are you hypothesizing the third party was in fact a group of carnoralists that lured two competing groups of smilchers into combat befoe eliminating the "victor" of that battle? The former situation seems more logical to me in the context of this entry. But either way, unles I've read it wrong the first sentence I cited is in error, or the various carnoralist vs. smilcher affiliations need to be made more explicit for those of us not as versed in the subject. We scholars should all take care to remember this is an encyclopdedia of general knowledge, even if the writers are well educated in matters more arcane. --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 20:07, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Battle_of_Barnum_Stones&diff=28028Ghyll talk:Battle of Barnum Stones2004-09-13T18:40:17Z<p>Bast ResNovae: rumination on Andelphracia and smilching re: the Battle of Barnum Stones</p>
<hr />
<div>==Out-Of-Game Discussion==<br />
<br />
It came out longer than expected, as the bishop once said......--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 06:20, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
There appears to be some problem - Andelphracian Lights were created by Andelphracia, who would have only been 5 years old in -325 EC. It's hard to think that she would have created the lights, and for them to have enough gestation to be the cause of a battle. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 13:14, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not sure on this- doesn't the entry use Andelphracian Lights as a common modern example of smilching? Perhaps these smilchers practiced a very primitive form of smilching- firey sticks or some such? Unfortunatley, this ancient history is outside my area of expertise, but I am looking forward to hearing those more learned about this ancient era elaborate. When dealing with such ancient dates from the time of legend though, it wouldn't surprising if there would be some difficulty defining a date so precisely... but I think for this layeperson, the crux that needs clarifying in this entry is: did this war precede Andelphracia's discovery or did in fact her new, superior smilching method predicate it?</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22877Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-12T02:58:35Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>dibbed by Bast Res Novae<br />
<br />
Bobby "Robert" Schwarmph putatively edits "Aliens Everywhere" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22, after he apparently went into seclusion for reasons only known to him at this writing. Research reveals all of Schwarmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by Iddy Ezzard after that date. Folktown Records #419 reported he may-- or may not-- have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident, and burns seared his throat, leaving him scarred and speachless. The article also hints he may have been the victim of foul play. However, interviews with former associates indicate Schwarmph was driven into plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during his factfinding trip to the Alezan ruins near his home. <br />
<br />
Schwarmph has been accused of using his popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against his political adversaries, but not even his most strident critics seems to remember what evidence they had against him on this point. Few of them remain in office or retain any semblance of their former importance, so their names probably aren't worth mentioning here. He is a member of the Brothers of the Lantern, and published a paper in the orgaization's scholarly journal as a stuent in -14. In that text, he rejected aurosociology as a doctinal heresy and held that light is the product of electromagnetic radiation that has little or no bearing on human behavior. He also rejected the concept social behavior could be studied by scientific investigations. It is not known if this conservative paradigm is held by other members of the Brotherhood or even Schwarmp himself, given the mysterious figure is suspected of direct involvement in several underground efforts to influence Glynn's social sphere, and some of his magazine's own pet conspiracies may indeed be red herrings produced by active and ongoing subversive efforts at social engineering... or, as his own magazine frequently posits, "is that just what they want you to think?"<br />
<br />
Schwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by actress Izadora Gutschtup (or an Alezanian, depending on the rumormonger). Records involving the younger Schwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts. The brilliant but eccentric recluse is scheduled to produce an anthology called "Aliens, Anywhere?" with the Academy of Conspiracy Theologists this fall. Drafts of the preface released to a few select figures of note for comment are highly sought after among the academics, the public, and the press, but highly controlled by Schwarmph. One purported draft, with forged "certificate of authenticity" was recently debunked by a sharp-eyed scholar at the Aerensplay Bazaar. The vendor was reportedly asking 4,900 Queztones for the faked luminous text.<br />
<br />
(tentative draft entry. pending further research. comments welcomed!)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22876Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-12T02:56:27Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>dibbed by Bast Res Novae<br />
<br />
Bobby "Robert" Schwarmph putatively edits "Aliens Everywhere" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22, after he apparently went into seclusion for reasons only known to him at this writing. Research reveals all of Schwarmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by Iddy Ezzard after that date. Folktown Records #419 reported he may-- or may not-- have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident, and burns seared his throat, leaving him scarred and speachless. The article also hints he may have been the victim of foul play. However, interviews with former associates indicate Schwarmph was driven into plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during his factfinding trip to the Alezan ruins near his home. <br />
<br />
Schwarmph has been accused of using his popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against his political adversaries, but not even his most strident critics seems to remember what evidence they had against him on this point. Few of them remain in office or retain any semblance of their former importance, so their names probably aren't worth mentioning here. He is a member of the Brothers of the Lantern, and published a paper in the orgaization's scholarly journal as a stuent in -14. In that text, he rejected aurosociology as a doctinal heresy and held that light is the product of electromagnetic radiation that has little or no bearing on human behavior. He also rejected the concept social behavior could be studied by scientific investigations. It is not known if this conserative paradigm is held by other members of the Brotherhood or even Schwarmp himself, given the mysterious figure is suspected of direct involvement in several underground efforts to influence Glynn's social sphere, and some of his magazine's own conspiracies may indeed be red herrings produced by active and ongoing subversive efforts...<br />
raising the unanswerable question: "or is that just what he wants you think?"<br />
<br />
Schwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by actress Izadora Gutschtup (or an Alezanian, depending on the rumormonger). Records involving the younger Schwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts. The brilliant but eccentric recluse is scheduled to produce an anthology called "Aliens, Anywhere?" with the Academy of Conspiracy Theologists this fall. Drafts of the preface released to a few select figures of note for comment are highly sought after among the academics, the public, and the press, but highly controlled by Schwarmph. One purported draft, with forged "certificate of authenticity" was recently debunked by a sharp-eyed scholar at the Aerensplay Bazaar. The vendor was reportedly asking 4,900 Queztones for the faked luminous text.<br />
<br />
(tentative draft entry. pending further research. comments welcomed!)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22875Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-12T02:43:35Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>dibbed by Bast Res Novae<br />
<br />
Bobby "Robert" Schwarmph putatively edits "Aliens Everyywhere" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22, after he apparently went into seclusion for reasons only known to him at this writing. Research reveals all of Schwarmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by Iddy Ezzard after that date. Folktown Records #419 reported he may-- or may not-- have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident, and burns seared his throat, leaving him scarred and speachless. The article also hints he may have been the victim of foul play. However, interviews with former associates indicate Schwarmph was driven into plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during his factfinding trip to the Alezan ruins near his home. <br />
<br />
Schwarmph has been accused of using his popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against his political adversaries, but not even his most strident critics seems to remember what evidence they had against him on this point. Few of them remain in office or retain any semblance of their former importance, so their names probably aren't worth mentioning here. He is a member of the Brotherhood of Light, which rejects modern auro-sociology as heresy, and holds that light is electromagnetic radiation with little or no bearing on human behavior.<br />
<br />
Schwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by actress Izadora Gutschtup (or an Alezanian, depending on the rumormonger). Records involving the younger Schwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts. The brilliant but eccentric recluse is scheduled to produce an anthology called "Aliens, Anywhere?" with the Academy of Conspiracy Theologists this fall. Drafts of the preface released to a few select figures of note for comment are highly sought after among the academics, the public, and the press, but highly controlled by Schwarmph. One purported draft, with forged "certificate of authenticity" was recently debunked by a sharp-eyed scholar at the Aerensplay Bazaar. The vendor was reportedly asking 4,900 Queztones for the faked luminous text.<br />
<br />
(tentative draft entry. pending further research. comments welcomed!)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22874Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-12T02:40:28Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>dibbed by Bast Res Novae<br />
<br />
Bobby "Robert" Schwarmph putatively edits "Aliens Everyywhere" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22, after he apparently went into seclusion for reasons only known to him at this writing. Research reveals all of Schwarmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by Iddy Ezzard after that date. Folktown Records #419 reported he may-- or may not-- have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident, and burns seared his throat, leaving him scarred and speachless. The article also hints he may have been the victim of foul play. However, interviews with former associates indicate Schwarmph was driven into plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during his factfinding trip to the Alezan ruins near his home. <br />
<br />
Schwarmph has been accused of using his popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against his political adversaries, but not even his most strident critics seems to remember what evidence they had against him on this point. Few of them remain in office or retain any semblance of their former importance, so their names probably aren't worth mentioning here. He is a member of the Brotherhood of Light, which rejects modern auro-sociology as heresy, and holds that light is electromagnetic radiation with no bearing on human behavior.<br />
<br />
Schwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by actress Izadora Gutschtup (or an Alezanian, depending on the rumormonger). Records involving the younger Schwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts. The brilliant but ececcentric recluse is scheduled to produce an anthology called "Aliens, Anywhere?" with the Academy of Conspiracy Theologists this fall. Drafts of the preface released to a few select figures of note to solicit comments and endorsements are in highly sought after among the celeprity press, but highly controlled by Schwarmph. One purported draft, with forged "certificate of authenticity" was recently debunked by a sharp-eyed scholar at the Aerensplay Bazaar. The vendor was reportedly asking 4,900 Queztones for the faked luminous text.<br />
<br />
(tentative draft entry. pending further research)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll_talk:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=28092Ghyll talk:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-12T02:15:51Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sorry, I'm new to this- Am I even close?</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22873Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-12T02:14:08Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>dibbed by Bast Res Novae<br />
<br />
Robert "Bobby" Schwarmph putatively edits "Aliens Anywhere" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22, after which he apparently went into seclusion for reasons only known to him at this writing. Research reveals all of Scharmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by Iddy Ezzard after that date. Folktown Records #419 reported he may-- or may not-- have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident which created burn scars deforming his entire face. The article also hints he may have been the victim of foul play. However, interviews with former associates indicate Schwarmph was driven into plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during a factfinding trip to the () ruins. A short time before he slipped off the social radar, he was quoted as saying (). Schwarmph has been accused of using his extraordinarily popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against political adversaries, but not even his most strident xritics seems to remember what evidence they had. He is a member of the Brotherhood of Light, which rejects modern auro-sociology a scientific heresy, and holds that light is a electromagnetic radiaion with no bearing on human behavior. The mysterious Schwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by actress Izadora Gutschtup, or a (). Records involving the younger Schwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts. The brilliant but ececcentric recluse is scheduled to produce an anthology of "Aliens Anywhere" conspiracy theories with the Academy of Conspiracy Theorists press this fall, and drafts of the preface are in high demand among the celeprity press. One purported draft, with forged "certificate of authenticity" was recently debunked by a sharp-eyed scholar at the Arensplay Bazaar. The vendor was asking 4,900 Queztones for the faked luminous text.<br />
<br />
(tentative draft entry. pending further research)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22872Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-12T02:05:17Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>dibbed by Bast Res Novae<br />
<br />
Robert "Bobby" Schwarmph putatively edits "Aliens Anywhere" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22, after which he apparently went into seclusion for reasons only known to him at this writing. Research reveals all of Scharmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by Iddy Ezzard after that date. Folktown Records #419 reported he may-- or may not-- have been the victim of a freak ball lightning accident which reakishly deformed his face. The article also and hints at the possibility of foul play. However, interviews with former associates indicate Schwarmph was driven ino plain old alcohol addiction after a vaguely documented incident during a factfinding trip to the () ruins. A short time before he slipped off the social radar, he was quoted as saying (). Schwarmph has been accused of using his extraordinarily popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against political adversaries, but not even his most strident xritics seems to remember what evidence they had. He is a member of the Brotherhood of Light, which rejects modern auro-sociology a scientific heresy, and holds that light is a electromagnetic radiaion with no bearing on human behavior. The mysterious Schwarmph's adoptive brother, Edward, is rumored to be his son by actress Izadora Gutschtup, or a (). Records involving the younger Schwarmph's parentage/origin remain sealed by the courts.<br />
<br />
(tentative draft entry. pending further research)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=User:Bast_ResNovae&diff=29317User:Bast ResNovae2004-09-12T01:53:08Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>Dibbed by BRS</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=User:Bast_ResNovae&diff=29316User:Bast ResNovae2004-09-12T01:29:19Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>Dibbed by BRS<br />
<br />
Robert "Bobby" Schwarmph putatively edits "Aliens Anywhere" magazine, but hasn't been seen or heard from by credible sources since -4/7/22, after which he apparently went into seclusion for reasons only known to him at this writing. Research reveals all of Scharmph's known personal and business matters have been handled by Iddy Ezzard after that date. Folktown Records #419 reported he may-- or may not-- be hiding out in a secret luxury suite at a Scheheradze Crime Syndicate casino in Little Veshcas. He has been accused of using his extraordinarily popular tabloid to promote subliminal conspiracy memes against political adversaries, but not even his most strident accusers seem to remember what evidence they had. The mysterious Schwarmph's adopted brother is rumored to be his son by actress Izadora Gutschtup, but records involving the younger Schwarmph's parentage remain sealed by the courts.<br />
<br />
(tentative draft entry. pending further research)</div>Bast ResNovaehttps://www.disobey.com/w/index.php?title=Ghyll:Bobby_Shwarmph&diff=22871Ghyll:Bobby Shwarmph2004-09-12T01:02:00Z<p>Bast ResNovae: </p>
<hr />
<div>dibbed by Bast Res Novae</div>Bast ResNovae