Disobiki - User contributions [en]

Ghyll talk:Bindlet Ball

2004-09-14T06:49:51Z

Ginestre:

This was hilarious. Bravo. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 10:24, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Agreed; definitely the entry of the game so far. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 22:07, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I must say that until reading this entry, I had never taken sport as seriously as I now see it clearly merits! Excellent!--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 02:49, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Ghyll talk:Battle of Barnum Stones

2004-09-13T19:08:03Z

Ginestre: and again

==Out-Of-Game Discussion==

It came out longer than expected, as the bishop once said......--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 06:20, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)

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)

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? --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 14:40, 13 Sep 2004

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)

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....
--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 15:01, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)

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)

2004-09-13T09:42:36Z

Ginestre: forgot to sign it

== Overview ==

Andelphracian lights and the Altoxian bulb are probably the two best known examples of a long-standing alchimical procedure used in many parts of Ghyll to produce either light or music by the admixture of two separate viscous fluids. However, until the discovery of the obith of substances, the underlying technomancy was unclear, and not only were both the traditional producers of light (“smilchers”) and of ritual music (“canoralists”) constrained to proceed either on the basis of happenstance, or of trial and error, or of procedures handed down across the ages, 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, which took place somewhere between –400 EC and –323EC in a field some 25 lele south of the present site of Cranee. Since the removal of the Stones to Stindersgrough by Corvin Axehand in –158, and the subsequent iconoclastic Raking, the precise location of the Battle has been contested, yet the story is told in every nursery on Ghyll.

The usual version of events has the Looliers ranged against the Exingians in a bloody contest in which each group sought to establish the superiority of its ritual system over that of the other, though by different means. As the story is traditionally related, the noble Exingians were decimated because rather than fight, they chose to wave their symbolic vorpcaras, which were of course no match for the finely honed weapons of their opponents, who slaughtered them. The vicious and complete retribution that was almost immediately visited on the Looliers is somehow held to re-confirm the pre-established moral order and to vindicate the choice of the Exingians, despite their atrocious demise. Siam Sinch’s lately published chart-topping alliterative glitterthought on the subject is one of the most recent of such popularisations:
<blockquote>
the mean and marauding miscreants<br>
metaphorically murdered mirth as they massacred the milder men, <br>
and, once done, are deemed to deserve the doom done back. <br>
</blockquote>

== Recent controversy ==

Despite its name, it is clear that the Battle of Barnum Stones was not so much a battle as a squalid massacre; what is less clear is who actually was massacred, and by whom; and some scholars point to controversial indications uncovered in recent archaeological excavations that might seem to point to the possibility that the whole sorry episode may actually have been long planned for the basest of motives, and cynically executed in the bloodiest and most ignoble of manners rather than being the unfortunate result of mischance and greed as related by tradition-. However, all scholars (whether traditional or modernist in bent) agree that a number of questions remain unsolved – not least, who did for the Looliers, how, and why?

== The facts as we know them ==

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. According to Arariax – who may have been present – the contest was to take place on the winter solstice, Gudersday, (but of what year?) and Casostates, super partes, himself was to judge.

However, when the Exingians and the Looliers arrived at the Barnum Stones a few days before the day appointed for the ritual contest, they found that a U-shaped ditch had been dug around the entire Stoneshelf, and the earth so excavated had been used to raise a barrow. The Stones were thus enclosed on three sides. Worse still, an unknown hand had scattered the remaining open edge with the dried seeds of fefferberries, a pungent fruit with various ritual uses in that area. The Looliers were therefore unable to reach the Stones without either scaling the ditch or (even more unthinkably) crossing the line of seeds.

The Looliers withdrew to some distance in the face of this affront, and the Exingians followed suit; and over the next three days (as tradition required), the leaders of each took counsel with their own, as well as with the leaders of the other. Suspicion ran high in both camps.

At the end of the three-day period of consultation, in his capacity as shaman - chief of the Looliers, Salerny Redthighs formally declared Umbrage. The Exingians diplomatically followed suit, since they were massively outnumbered; and for a day or two calm prevailed. But on Gudersday, the situation precipitated rapidly. Having declared Umbrage, but unable either to reach the Barnum Stones, or to withdraw with honour, the exasperated Salerno vented his fury on a nearby homestead, quite possibly at Saon Dur. Because the homesteaders were unwilling (in some versions) or unable (in others) to replenish his depleted stocks of muirbeer, Salerno put the entire homestead to the sword, and razed the buildings. When news of this reached the Exingian camp, their commander felt she had no choice but to send the Loolian commander the bull’s pizzle, which Salerno first feigned not to see and then explicitly sent back. This was war.

The two forces met early on the day after Guders; the Exingians knew they were massively outnumbered as well as outflanked, yet nevertheless drew themselves up into their ritual square formation, 7 warriors wide and 7 warriors deep, at the centre of the battlefield. A vorpcara was held aloft at the centre of each line of 7; each of these was supported by three pages to the left, and three to the right. The pages to the left held wooden bowls containing spring water, and those to the right, sprigs of adlorst. These were to symbolise the measurement of time passing.

It was all over in a very short time, and the Looliers struck camp and set out for their own lands. They suffered no losses themselves, and did nothing to honour the fallen Exingians.

That night, the group camped in the Vale of Serdoch. Not one would survive the night: during the hours of darkness, a mysterious “affliction” fell upon them, and they were never seen again.

== Related background information ==

History of course is written by the victors, and the Looliers can hardly be described as that. We know little enough of them, beyond what is related here. Only one Loolier manuscript has so far come to light -the long satirical poem Bordingbras his hatt!- and across the centuries the Looliers are yet still so despised that most mainstream scholars disdain to study it. Further, the passing of time has dignified what took place at Barnum with the epithet “Battle”, attributing the noblest of motives to the Exingians, and most often denigrating the Looliers as little better than lascivious lunatics more interested in fornication than washing. The slaughter of the Exingians at the hand of Salerny Redthighs was the spark that ultimately ignited the patrician tribes; they finally united, thus setting in train the events that led inexorably to the Raking, to the total destruction of the Looliers and to the present order.

But recent archaeological evidence may finally and perversely lend strong support to an entirely different reading of events, in which the Looliers are not the makers of massacre but rather, simple victims in the grip of events entirely beyond their comprehension. In this version, the entire Battle was masterminded by a mysterious Third Force. This certainly would accord with the tale offered by Bordingbras his hatt!, the only Loolian ms still extant, and held in the Oldlucian Library. This is the only document we have which tells the Looliers’ side of events – if we may take the tale as talking of Salerny.

This comparatively little-studied poem by an unknown hand is the only document in the Loolian dialect: to have survived the rage of the times, and hitherto it has been a lone voice of dissent in the centuries of constant praise for the perceived “noble sacrifice of the Exingians”.

The poem relates the doom-laden, tragic fate of Bordingbras, a lost hero who is a mere bagatelle in the hands of a Fate that is not so much arbitrary as wilfully capricious. The hero (bravebeste Bordinbracche!), destined to be perennially misunderstood and perennially to misunderstand, will ultimately go willingly, sword in hand, to the slaughter just like a beast. This is of course exactly what befell Salerny Redthighs and his Looliers.

<blockquote>
that wendyng wyse of woods <br>
when that wierd wolde<br>
lats nat live ne nigiune:<br>
death sholde<br>
(fit 7 lines 1124-1127 in my published transcription of Dunby’s transliteration)<br>

A vicious destiny was encountered among the trees<br>
just as Fate always decrees<br>
and does not allow anyone to survive:<br>
the angel of death reigns supreme. <br>(my translation in course of publication)<br>

</blockquote>

== Some hypotheses ==

I have long posited the existence of a third army (whose forces had simply hidden somewhere in the vale of Serdoch). This seems to me more plausible than Mere Monsters, Hybgoblins, drachens or any of the other supernatural and nursery creatures that populate the various folk versions of the Telling of Barnum Stones. A solid army, with boots and spears, seems more likely- but raises several questions. Whose army? And why were they ready, armed, hidden and waiting?
However, allow me to make several conjectures. This third force was behind the entire episode; it was a piece of tactical strategy unsurpassed for those times. They had summonsed both of the other groups to the Stones, and had staged the original affront which provoked Salerny’s Umbrage. Their strategy was simply to bide their time. They knew that neither of the visiting tribes had come victualled for a long stay. And they also bet that the irascible chief of the Looliers, Salerny Redthighs, would be incapable of containing his rage for very long. As long as they remained undetected, they considered it inevitable that he would vent his fury either directly on the Exingians, or on one or more of the isolated homesteads in the area. Since the area was south of Cranee, they knew that like as not the homesteads would have belonged to recent Exingian converts who had chosen not to live in the town as a preliminary measure to adopting the full lifestyle of their prophetess. If the homesteaders were attacked, they would be able to claim kinship and protection from the visiting Exingians.

<br>--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 05:42, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)

2004-09-05T22:10:13Z

Ginestre:

AuroAnthropology is the social-humanist study of the history of light and light sources in culture, in contrast to the long theological tradition of the [[Brothers of the Lantern]]. Modern AuroAnthropology is a fairly young science, as clear and objective study into light and related matters was until relatively recently the subject of strong taboo, if not outright persecution. Consider the obscure approach which a scribe of the Fylesgate Annals seems to think necessary in referring to the invention of [[Andelphracian Lights]]: (Please forgive the translation from ternary script)

<blockquote>
Hail Andelphracia! Hail!<br />
Seventh mayor, seven times chosen,<br />
Ripped a secret from heaven<br />
Any other would surely be smote to ash<br />
Or struck by lightning as an unrighteous thief<br />
Also, she commissioned a rather-charming clock tower<br />
Presided over festivals seven times<br />
Resolved the farm dispute fairly to either side<br />
Until you build a clock<br />
Be wary in following the example of your betters.<br />
</blockquote>

Even in our contemporary times, the pursuit of AuroAnthropology has been at best considered fairly controversial. Consider this recent clipping from our own [[Folktown Records]], edition 312:

<blockquote><p>"Why does the Sun Shine?" - Gibbous Saunders, age 11.</p>

<p>Garth Haversham (Managing Editor) replies: "Dear readers, while it is the policy and mission of this publication to provide clear answers to questions, in this case myself and my staff have had to make a tough call--Master Saunders, ask your mother."</p>
</blockquote>

In very recent years, however, thanks to the pioneering work of many scholars toiling in obscurity, a few courageous city 'docs', and the higher profile activities of the [[Unquisition]], many questions about the history of portable and celestial light have begun to be addressed.

'''Citations''': [[Brothers of the Lantern]], [[Unquisition]].

--[[User:Joe Bowers|Joe Bowers]] 16:41, 2 Sep 2004 (EDT)

[[Category:Other]]

----

I'd just like to emphacise, having studied the Fylesgate Annals for some time, just how strained that translation of the ternary script is: in several places it could easily be interpreted as meaning the opposite with a few very straightforward arguments. Nontheless, I recognize the extreme difficulty in providing translations of ternary script in core script. Perhaps when the Encyclopaedia comes around to defining Ternary Script, we can include some examples of the original. I'd also like to thank Mr. Bowers for including an entry on the oft' neglected field of AuroAnthropology so early on in the creation of the Encyclopaedia. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 13:34, 3 Sep 2004 (EDT)

My apologies again for the weak translation- for example, in the sixth (translated) line above, my reading of a 45 degree westward bend in the second-order script as 'rather-charming' could also be read "terrifying", or simply "yellow". Alternative translations by other scholars would be welcome in this space, editors permitting. --[[User:Joe Bowers|Joe Bowers]] 13:58, 3 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I can already hear husbands all across Ghyll saying "why, my dear, you're looking 'rather-charming' in the Bowersian sense today". --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 14:07, 3 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Joe, that's a darn fine translation you got goin' there. But you forgot the format-dependant nature of Blivingdel's Interpretation of Ternary Script. Way I read it, it comes out more like:

<blockquote>
<p>Hail, Andelphracia!<br />
Hail, The 7 Mayors seven times!<br />
They tore a secret down from the sky.<br />
Any, who were selected, would be safe.<br />
Which other one would be smote over to ashes<br />
or struck by lightning as an unrightous thief?<br />
The <untranslatable> one rather <untranslatable> master clock.<br />
Andelphracia presided over Festivals seven times during the farm debate.<br />
Each side then repaired, until Andelphracia carefully improved the master clock.</p>
</blockquote>

That 3rd line from the last didn't make no sense, but I see how you could get "yellow" or "rather-charming" or "terrifying" for that glyph. You can clearly see the ascending length structure of the lines in my translation. Afraid my Ternary Script is a bit rusty, but I think this reading captures the style of a scribe of the Fylesgate Annals just a bit better.
--[[User:Qwentyth Pyre|Qwentyth Pyre]] 15:36, 3 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Given that it was her seventh year of mayoresshood (cf. "the creation in the seventh year of the mayoresshood of Andelphracia of her namesakeful lights" in [[Andelphracian Lights]]), that reading is even more unlikely. Current Fylesgate Annals research suggests no verifiable references to non-Andelphracia mayors of Fylesgate--we can be fairly sure that the Annals are almost all only about her activities as Fylesgate mayoress--but as with any investigation into Ternary Script literature, I don't think your reading can be completely discounted. In any case, I here provide my own translation:

Feeling the ascending length structure to be merely an oddly popular myth of Ternary Script style, I've composed this in the rhyming iambic pentameter couplets I feel more befitting for such a magnificent piece of Ghyll heritage:

<blockquote class="ternary">
<div>[...]</div>
<div> Cheer now good charm to Andelphracia: </div>

<div>Her seventh year, and pray we seven more! </div>
<div> The firmament to her bequeathed its lore, </div>

<div>Although to else it would have causèd grief</div>
<div> Or struck by lightning as unrighteous thief.</div>

<div>She the clock tower moved great men to build,</div>
<div> Presided over sevèral a guild,</div>

<div>Led us to reclaim land a Fool derides:</div>
<div> Resolved the Farm Dispute fair on both sides.</div>

<div>Caution then to whom fall short of her grace:</div>
<div> Know well thy lowly station and thy place.</div>
</blockquote>

Though there is quite some diversity in the syntax and semantics of our collective translations, I think that the underlying feel and direction has been now adequately captured by us three. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 17:26, 3 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Thanks to you both for your help! For those of you who may not have access to your own copy of the Annals, I attach the untranslated document (some primary and secondary structure has been omitted for clarity, except when chording with the lower-order structures was necessary). Note the three separate compass strokes (!), that caused me and Mr. Pyre such confusion over the chord "The Mighty/Time/Mechanism". (That, to Mr. Palmer's delight, I read initially as "Time/Charming"). See [http://www.culturematic.net/ghyll/hail-andalphracia.gif Fylesgate Annals Folio 82 (Andelphracia)]. --[[User:Joe Bowers|Joe Bowers]] 19:58, 4 Sep 2004

I know that my position on Phracia and the Phracians is generally considered risible, paranoid or sometimes even offensive- but sooner or later even the most obtuse will surely be constrained to face facts. We're supposed to be scholars, damn it all. Now- when the gloves finally come off, there's one question I'd dearly love to see settled: just WHY are there no records of mayors other than (''sic'') Andel-Phracia? Now that's a question worth its obith in fefferberry seeds.... --[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 16:43, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Paranoid especially since even the existence of the "Phracians" is based on a highly tenuous etymological reading of Andelphracia's name in Ternary Script. Current studies indicate it more likely that her name is derived from a compound of several chordic elements for simple qualities (specifically, possibily qualities related to her birth: the elements for "lakeside", "rain", and "dawn-chorus" can be discerned), which have over time coalesced and mutated into a fixed form. The time phase for this having taken place is unknown since the Duadic Scripts that would be most likely to lead to further insight on the matter are still largely undeciphered, but we do have some passing references in other sundry records that were recently discovered in the [[Odlucian Library]]. (Please excuse me if by "Phracians" you mean those of us that study Andelphracia; a term that has been used occasionally. It's just that your hyphenation of her name suggests otherwise).

We are led to believe from the Fylesgate Annals that Fylesgate was a small town with a very prestigious and famous mayoress, but your question is a good one and I'm unable to shed any further light on it: why should a town kept by one of the most famous of Ghyll's historical figures have barely a mention in other documents before or after her, and why are we unable to place it with any much more accuracy than to the [[Evesque Valley]]? Perhaps as our skills at interpreting Ternary and Duadic Script evolves, we'll learn some answers, but given the amount of time that's passed since those grand days, it's likely that there'll be a few mysteries that'll continue to tantalise us for a long time to come. Archaeological excavations in the [[Evesque Valley]] by the Cranee lot et al. may also help us to understand--you never know, there might even be more records turned up in the process. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 17:05, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)

If by "tenuous etymological reading" you intend (as if I didn't know) to cast aspersions on my extensive studies of variant q in Ternary, so be it. My shoulders are broad, and the fear of being a lone voice in the wilderness has never held me back from asking awkward questions; what is more -and you must grant me that this is some small measure of comfort - time told in my favour over the Loolier poem. So, my question stands: IF (my capitalisation) the name Andelphracia refers to only one person, and female, why are there no records of others? You yourself accept the rather vague nature references implicit in "her" name, and posit coalescence over time, and solidification. Don't be offended now, but these are not qualities generally associated with stories, legends or myths about on one single historical person. Accretion, yes- but not coalescence and solidification.

On the other hand, if we - just for one brave moment - dared to question received wiesom, and posited that Andelphracia should be read Andel-Phracia, not one but many.... how many other oddities would suddenly seen no longer quite so strange....

Ghyll:AuroAnthropology

2004-09-05T20:44:55Z

Ginestre: added sic

2004-09-05T17:58:02Z

Ginestre: /* Other Threads */

__TOC__

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)

==Frequently Asked Questions==

===How do I dib an entry (cf. Rule 1)?===
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)

===Can I cite more than I'm required to cite? (cf. Rule 2)===
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)

===What happens about linking to widely-used terms?===
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)

==Comments, Questions, Complaints?==

===Alternate Reality vs. Fictional World===
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

===Non-turn Activities===
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)

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)

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)

===Other Threads===

''Got some comments or questions? Add 'em here!''

'''Correction of spelling and typos'''

What is general etiquette on the correction of spelling and typos in otries other than mine? (not that either my spelling or typing is perfect, but I assume nobody objects if I correct myself)?
--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (EDT)

==Useful Resources==

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)

Ghyll:Ghyll Index

2004-09-02T22:09:07Z

Ginestre: /* Phantom Entries */

Ghyll:Ghyll Index

2004-09-02T22:08:04Z

Ginestre: /* Phantom Entries */

Ghyll:Ghyll Index

2004-09-02T22:04:04Z

Ginestre:

Ghyll:Awal shrinkage

2004-09-02T21:44:57Z

Ginestre: signed off version, added citations

== What is Awal shrinkage? ==

If an emulsion of waxy materials and [[spelgof]] is subjected to a rapid and reiterated cycle of heating and cooling, the emulsion will emit a sequence of short bursts of orange light; additionally, a striking but temporary diminution in the obith weight of the emulsion after treatment is found. The emulsion may be returned relatively rapidly to its original obith state by subjecting it to low-level sound waves; left to its own devices, however, it will naturally revert over a period of time ranging from 1-3 days.

== The technomancy of Awal shrinkage ==

This phenomenon is usually explained with reference to a principle of Awal shrinkage, in which it is held that some small particles of [[spelgof]] in the viscous state of the emulsion are exacerbated by the cycle of heating and cooling, and attempt to break out by smilching visibly. However, because the particles are tightly bound to their original positions in the emulsion, they will over time naturally return to their base. No adequate explanation for the accelerator effect of low level sound waves in particle return (the so-called “crooning effect”) has been offered.

The diminution in obith weight is inversely proportional to [[Jesper’s constant]] multiplied by the number of cycles of heating and cooling to which the emulsion is subjected. No means has yet been found to measure precisely the quantity of orange light emitted, though Awal (who was the first to apply [[Jesper’s constant]] to the study of spelgof emulsions, and for whom the shrinkage was named) suggested that the colour of the light was much more significant than its quantity, and posited that under other unspecified conditions, different colours would be emitted.

Meldersen in particular has always disputed this: his famous axiom "It's downside up!" was originally pronounced to support his hypothesis that the fundamental element of Awal shrinkage is not the production of light of whatever colour, or its associated diminution of obith, but rather the bizarre suction of noise that accompanies and accelerates re-obith. Whilst this idea has attracted some following among the young, most mainstream scholars have derided it.

== Practical applications of Awal shrinkage ==

Whilst Awal shrinkage is routinely used in the laboratory to demonstrate smilching, wider applications of the technomancy have yet to be demonstrated. Indeed, although it may be theoretically possible to use Awal shrinkage to generate light in dark places, as yet no sufficiently reliable or predictable method to ensure a constant supply of light has been developed.

Meldersen's proposal, that the shrinkage be used to reduce the level of noise in work environments, is not generally held to be viable.

----
'''Citations:''' [[spelgof]] [[Jesper's constant]]

--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 17:44, 2 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Ghyll:Awal shrinkage

2004-09-02T21:39:41Z

Ginestre: phantom shunted off page