Ghyll:Frequently Asked Questions - Revision history

Morbus Iff: Reverted edit of MANO, changed back to last version by MorbusIff

2006-01-16T14:51:47Z

Reverted edit of MANO, changed back to last version by MorbusIff

Can't load revision 24817

Morbus Iff: Reverted edit of Ddd, changed back to last version by MorbusIff

2005-10-14T21:11:18Z

Reverted edit of Ddd, changed back to last version by MorbusIff

Can't load revision 24815

Morbus Iff: I don't see any need.

2005-09-26T13:35:55Z

I don't see any need.

Sbp: When can we name orthogonalities? Includes proposal.

2005-09-26T01:38:44Z

When can we name orthogonalities? Includes proposal.

Brother Arfrus: this doesn't belong here

2005-08-02T13:40:48Z

this doesn't belong here

Can't load revision 24811

Jcowan: /* Are the scholars (player roles) a canonical part of Ghyll? */ Walla Walla removal

2005-05-31T03:53:58Z

Are the scholars (player roles) a canonical part of Ghyll?: Walla Walla removal

Jcowan: /* Can I cite more than I'm required to cite? (cf. Rule 2) */ Copy editing

2005-05-31T03:51:48Z

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

Morbus Iff: Whoops; that particular question was answered on R2 Discussion.

2005-05-23T14:22:49Z

Whoops; that particular question was answered on R2 Discussion.

D8uv: Answering a question perhaps?

2005-05-23T14:16:14Z

Answering a question perhaps?

Jcowan: /* What's the procedure for joining in late? */ Clarifying

2005-05-20T12:40:26Z

What's the procedure for joining in late?: Clarifying

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 ===To Whom Does One Appeal to Create a New Orthogonality?===
-The entry on [[Orthogonalities]] states that "As scholar and player, you MUST NOT create a new orthogonality unless existing text or phantoms already suggest its unique existence." I'm wondering if there is a process, in the legitimate case that one would need to create a new orthogonality, for naming and propogating said orthogonality. I presume that since we are not defining new orthogonalities this would be limited to naming them and making references to them which don't define their contents past some trivialities.
+The entry on [[Orthogonalities]] states that "As scholar and player, you MUST NOT create a new orthogonality unless existing text or phantoms already suggest its unique existence." I'm wondering if there is a process, in the legitimate case that one would need to create a new orthogonality, for naming and propogating said orthogonality. I presume that since we are not defining new orthogonalities this would be limited to naming them and making references to them which don't define their contents past some trivialities. A specific example: when I created orthogonalities, part of the rationale was that my [[User:Sbp|user page]], though non-canonical, mentions an area that doesn't seem to belong to the current orthogonality. Now I would like to refer to that orthogonality by name in the entry I've just dibbed, [[Sea fairs]]; I'd like to call it the Andelphracia Orthogonality if I may. But I don't want to set a precedent here if it's thought that it'll be detrimental in the long run. So, what's the story? I propose that all requests for ''anything'' concerning alternate orthogonalities should be proposed on the [[Talk:Orthogonalities|orthogonalities talk page]], and then all of the scholars can vote on it, leaving the final decision to the encyclopedants. Then any concerns etc. can be raised and dealt with beforehand. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 21:38, 25 Sep 2005 (EDT)
-A specific example: when I created orthogonalities, part of the rationale was that my [[User:Sbp|user page]], though non-canonical, mentions an area that doesn't seem to belong to the current orthogonality. Now I would like to refer to that orthogonality by name in the entry I've just dibbed, [[Sea fairs]]; I'd like to call it the Andelphracia Orthogonality if I may. But I don't want to set a precedent here if it's thought that it'll be detrimental in the long run. So, what's the story?
+:Not defining orthogonalities, as the warning suggests, is a game balance issue. If you create that orthogonality, then very little will happen to it - it will become a pocket (a wiki garden, I think they're called from c2). Look at Xurient: nothing has happened to it at all. Another orthogonality would have the exact same thing happen. I'd much rather have an entry integrate with the existing world then cast off and be ignored. I don't see any legitimate reason for creating a new ortho, any more than I'd see a legitimate reason for suddenly creating a new moon, new sister planet, or other major geological location. It becomes a wasted reference. The original warning concerns naming as well and references as well. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:35, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 [[Category:Lexicon]]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 [http://www.fantasist.net/funnynames.shtml The Funny Name Generator]
 : By [[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]].
 [[Category:Lexicon]]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 Initially no, but potentially yes, depending on what happens in articles.  You can refer to scholars in articles as well as link to their user pages in this style: <nowiki>[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]]</nowiki>.  You ''may'' assume that what scholars write about themselves is true, but you are not ''compelled'' to assume it factual, as you are with the facts in regular articles, for two reasons.
-Within the game, scholar pages are obviously self-serving; outside the game, scholar pages can be changed at any time, so building in dependencies on them is not entirely safe.  That said, most scholars don't in fact make inconsistent changes to their pages, and are in fact discouraged from doing so.  In any case, it certainly does no harm to maintain professional courtesy by verifying anything said about another scholar with the player before putting it down.
+Within the game, scholar pages are obviously self-serving; outside the game, scholar pages can be changed at any time, so building in dependencies on them is not entirely safe.  That said, most scholars don't in fact make inconsistent changes to their pages, and are hereby discouraged from doing so.  In any case, it certainly does no harm to maintain professional courtesy by verifying anything said about another scholar with the player before putting it down.
 The scholarly comments at the bottoms of articles have a similar status:  they are not initially canonical, but you can certainly treat them as such (thus, making them canonical) if you like.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ===Can I cite more than I'm required to cite? (cf. Rule 2)===
-In each turn after the first, you're required to cite exactly two phantom entries (which may be existing phantoms, brand new phantoms, or a mixture of both) and one existing entry, no more and no less.  An article is cited by placing it in the Citations list at the bottom of your article.  ''For Round 2, you may not cite two brand new phantoms.''  See the [[Ghyll Index]] and the [[Ghyll Phantom Index]], which jointly constitute a complete list of in-play terms.
+In each turn after the first, you're required to cite exactly two phantom entries (which may be existing phantoms, brand-new phantoms, or a mixture of both) and one existing entry, no more and no less.  An article is cited by placing it in the Citations list at the bottom of your article.  ''For Round 2, you may not cite two brand new phantoms.''  See the [[Ghyll Index]] and the [[Ghyll Phantom Index]], which jointly constitute a complete list of in-play terms.
 None of these three citations can be terms you've created or written.  However, this rule applies forward only: it isn't retroactively enforced.  In other words, if you cite a phantom that someone else had created, and then in a later turn you define that phantom, you have not violated the self-citation rule.

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 [http://www.fantasist.net/funnynames.shtml The Funny Name Generator]
 : By [[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]].
 [[Category:Lexicon]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 23 May 2005
Line 67:		Line 67:
	the Main Page says "welcome to the '''world''' of Ghyll" I take "world" to be a massive place, but the map of Ghyll and the body of turn 1 entries make out the "world" to be quite small. By this I mean the geographic locations are all within short distance of each other (at least I get this impression) and there are not multiple "nations" (whether city-states, counties, baronies, kingdoms, princedoms, etc). Is this world truly small or is it just a wrong impression on my part, and are we free to describe the "white" parts of the map (ie the Currently Undescribed but Not Necessarily Unexplored by the Ghyll Scholars)? --[[User:Nikos of Ant\|Nikos of Ant]] 18:03, 4 May 2005 (EDT)		the Main Page says "welcome to the '''world''' of Ghyll" I take "world" to be a massive place, but the map of Ghyll and the body of turn 1 entries make out the "world" to be quite small. By this I mean the geographic locations are all within short distance of each other (at least I get this impression) and there are not multiple "nations" (whether city-states, counties, baronies, kingdoms, princedoms, etc). Is this world truly small or is it just a wrong impression on my part, and are we free to describe the "white" parts of the map (ie the Currently Undescribed but Not Necessarily Unexplored by the Ghyll Scholars)? --[[User:Nikos of Ant\|Nikos of Ant]] 18:03, 4 May 2005 (EDT)

−		+	It's left up to you whether to work within the bounds already set or to explain what happens outside of the map's border. Ultimately, it is the players themselves that set the bounds of the game. --[[User:D8uv\|Melik Fizzou]] 10:16, 23 May 2005 (EDT)

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ===What's the procedure for joining in late?===
-You must join in at the current letter and then proceed at the normal pace without going back to earlier letters, Allowing new players filling in entries on earlier letters would probably create a situation where only one or two folks would have time to read the "out of turn" entries (which isn't to say that you'll never be able to define an A entry -- Ghyll is planned indefinitely, with rounds starting over once Z is reached).
+You must join in at the current letter and then proceed at the normal pace without going back to earlier letters, Allowing new players filling in entries on earlier letters would probably create a situation where only one or two folks would have time to read the "out of turn" entries (which isn't to say that you'll never be able to define an A entry -- Ghyll is planned indefinitely, with a new round starting at A once Z is reached).
-Starting at A and remaining X entries behind the rest of the players would unnaturally unbalance the game - if you and I were conspiring to make Ghyll solely about balloon animals, for instance, I could define phantoms for letters that you'll be defining soon (which everyone else has already finished - 'ha! everyone else has finished C so I'll phantom Choking Hazard and Shataina wi... muHAHHAHAHhHAH!'), and we'd be able to exert heavier "control" of Ghyll's direction.
+A new player starting at A and remaining ''n'' entries behind the rest of the players would unnaturally unbalance the game.  If you and I were conspiring to make Ghyll solely about balloon animals, for instance, I could define phantoms for letters that you'll be defining soon (which everyone else has already finished - 'ha! everyone else has finished C so I'll phantom Choking Hazard and Shataina wi... muHAHHAHAHhHAH!'), and we'd be able to exert heavier "control" of Ghyll's direction.
 ===What are the house rules for signatures?===