Lexicon!

Symposium Mandated Bibliognostic 'Cyclopedia

Interested in playing Lexicon? (read introductory post before voting, plzkthx)

Poll ended at Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:53 am

Sure!
5
33%
Do you really expect me to read that wall of text?
4
27%
Did you seriously write 'plzkthx'?
4
27%
More like the blind puppy running into a wall
2
13%
 
Total votes : 15

Lexicon!

Postby Edminster » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:53 am

So, I've been thinking of ways to revitalise this forum, and have decided that Lexicon may be a good way to do it. The rules of the game are fairly simple:

The basic idea is that each player takes on the role of a scholar, from before scholarly pursuits became professionalized (or possibly after they ceased to be). You are cranky, opinionated, prejudiced and eccentric. You are also collaborating with a number of your peers -- the other players -- on the construction of an encyclopedia describing some historical period (possibly of a fantastic world).

The game is played in 26 turns, one for each letter of the alphabet.

1. On the first turn, each player writes an entry for the letter 'A'. You come up with the name of the entry, and you write 100-200 words on the subject. At the end of the article, you sign your name, and make two citations to other entries in the encyclopedia. These citations will be Phantoms -- their names exist, but their content will get filled in only on the appropriate turn.

2. On the second and subsequent turns, you continue to write entries for B, C, D and so on. However, you need to make three citations. One must be a reference to an already-written entry, and two must be to unwritten entries.

It's an academic sin to cite yourself, you can never cite an entry you've written. Same deal for writing a phantom that you created, not allowed. (OOC, this forces the players to intertwingle their entries, so that everybody depends on everyone else's facts.)

3. Despite the fact that your peers are self-important, narrow-minded dunderheads, they are honest scholars. No matter how strained their interpretations are, their facts are accurate as historical research can make them. So if you cite an entry, you have to treat its factual content as true! (Though you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation.)

4. When you cite a Phantom, write it <<like this>>. The Moderator will compile a list of Phantoms when he logs in every day. After a Phantom has been written, the person who originally cited it (or a moderator) will edit the citing entry to link them together.

5. The subject of this Lexicon is as follows:
"Symposium Mandated Bibliognostic 'Cyclopedia: A Compendium of Knowledge on the Weiner Forums, as written by the Scholars and Descendants thereof"

It is written a good two centuries after the forums died, but there is one important caveat to this: At NO TIME should there be a definite date regarding the death of the Forums. Infractions of this rule will lead to deletion of the offending entry as well as ten points being docked from the Author's final score.

Scoring
One point is awarded for participation in each turn.
Fifteen points will be awarded at the end of the game for the Featured Entry, as voted by the players.
Ten points deducted for failure to abide by rule 5.
Gold Stars awarded as Moderator sees fit.

Clarifications
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Are you envisioning this game working like the example insofar as we each take on the role of some competing faction, and append some biased commentary to each of our objective enycylopedic entries?

This is very much how I would like it to play out, yes. I'm not going to be a stickler for keeping the entries free from bias, but I would like them to be as objective as possible.
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Are we going to know before each round starts what the subjects of other peoples' articles are?

At the beginning of each round, available topics will be listed and people will get to pick. If you can't come up with a topic, let the GM know, so he can assign one to you. Phantoms are picked on a first-come, first-served basis, although players can call dibs on a topic in the citing entry's comments. Players can only call dibs on one topic at a time.
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Is there a way to deal with contradictory information that comes up in one round?

If an entry flatly contradicts the events set down in another entry, the one that was posted first is the official entry. The offending player must correct his entry. More often than not, though, seemingly contradictory entries can be reconciled with the rest with the proper application of spin (or judicious editing). Remember, if you can rationalise it to the satisfaction of the community, it's a part of history.

Cirtur has questions:
Cirtur wrote:Will this be a wiki at the end of the game?

If anybody is nice enough to provide hosting for the Wiki itself, yes.
Cirtur wrote:Is there a prize for the winner?

Assuming we can raise enough money, yes.
Cirtur wrote:What is the prize?

I was hoping to publish a hardcopy of the SMBCyclopedia, and sending it to the winner.
Cirtur wrote:Shipping to the UK is quite expensive so...you know?

Well, that's an obstacle that can be solved by having everyone chip in for the cost.
Cirtur wrote:Well I guess if you're all clubbing together to buy me it then it's ok but where would I put it?

I would suggest a prominent location, like on your coffee table. Perhaps a bookshelf, but that's just a silly place to store what will turn out to be a comprehensive history of the best forum in existence.
Cirtur wrote:And what would I use a gold plated rent boy for?

We couldn't afford real gold-plating, so we just painted him gold. Also there's really not much difference between a rent boy and a hobo, right?

Confirmed Authors:
mountainmage
AHMETxRock
Laneth
Lethal Interjection
Sahan
Cirtur
Oldrac the Chitinous

Unconfirmed Authors:
Asherian
diode_dirigible
hawhaw1267
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: Lexicon!

Postby diode_dirigible » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:38 am

sounds like an insanely good idea, but im not sure i have the skills to pull it off
I shall express my interest nonetheless.

If I cite an entry that is yet to be written, assumably I have to write it when it's letter comes around?

For example: If, in my "b" entry on "Boulevard, The" I referred to the "Essential Brotherhood" would I be the one writing about the Essential Brotherhood or would there be some way of delegating citations?
User avatar
diode_dirigible
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:54 pm
Location: Higher than is strictly safe

Re: Lexicon!

Postby mountainmage » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:45 am

You left out the option: "maybe, after you show me an example of a preexisting game."
No more white horses ♬ ♫ ♪ ılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılı ♪ ♫ ♬ for you to ride away
User avatar
mountainmage
Mage of the Mountains
 
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 11:42 am
Location: Right here. Right now.

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Edminster » Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:09 am

The rules are clear for the case of citing entries that you have already written, so I'm going to say that it applies the other direction as well. You cannot write a phantom entry that you have cited. When the letter it starts with comes up in rotation, it is claimed by another player or assigned to another player by the GM. In the event that there are more phantom entries for a letter than people participating, points will be awarded for those who fill out the unclaimed citations.

Mage, an example can be found here, but they did not play by quite the rules that have been set down.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Lethal Interjection » Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:27 am

I'd be willing to be involved. The idea sounds intriguing, though, I don't entirely understand, so I'd need someone else to start, so I could get a feeling for it.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Oldrac the Chitinous » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:17 am

Sounds like a good time to me! Seems like we might want to give more than a day for the turns, though, if we want to come up with good ideas and quality prose. That example game sets the bar pretty high.

EDIT:
...and now I'm going to pepper you with questions.

Are you envisioning this game working like the example insofar as we each take on the role of some competing faction, and append some biased commentary to each of our objective enycylopedic entries?
Is it going to be scored, or no?
Is the topic you suggested one that's been used before, or is that an option for our game?
Are we going to know before each round starts what the subjects of other peoples' articles are?
Is there a way to deal with contradictory information that comes up in one round?

And, just so I can feel like I'm contributing something, a suggestion (which is assuming a yes to the first question, I guess):
The players are delegates to the peace conference at Toricaphalos that will decide the the distribution of land and damages to be paid by the various states who were party to the bloody Forty Thrones War of RSC 445-449.
Police said they spent some time working out if they could charge the man with being armed with a weapon, as technically he was armed with part of a fish.
User avatar
Oldrac the Chitinous
Chicken O' the Sea
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Location: The Perfect Stillness of the Deep

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Edminster » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:06 pm

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Are you envisioning this game working like the example insofar as we each take on the role of some competing faction, and append some biased commentary to each of our objective enycylopedic entries?

This is very much how I would like it to play out, yes. I'm not going to be a stickler for keeping the entries free from bias, but I would like them to be as objective as possible.
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Is it going to be scored, or no?

I'm not certain yet. I'm leaning towards yes, but have yet to work out a competent scoring system.
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Is the topic you suggested one that's been used before, or is that an option for our game?

I don't think it's been used before, but I would rather not play it.
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Are we going to know before each round starts what the subjects of other peoples' articles are?

At the beginning of each round, available topics will be listed and people will get to pick. In the event that there are no phantoms to fill out, the GM will announce the title of a New Entry. Phantoms are picked on a first-come, first-served basis, although players can call dibs on a topic in the citing entry's comments. Players can only call dibs on one topic at a time.
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Is there a way to deal with contradictory information that comes up in one round?

Contradictory how? If it's a case of improper timeline, the player that first posted a definite point in time is the correct one, and the offending player must correct his entry. I keep saying 'his' because this is the Internet, and there are no girls on it. Wolf and Ashe are just foxy group hallucinations, caused by spending far too much time on the computer.

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:And, just so I can feel like I'm contributing something, a suggestion (which is assuming a yes to the first question, I guess):
The players are delegates to the peace conference at Toricaphalos that will decide the the distribution of land and damages to be paid by the various states who were party to the bloody Forty Thrones War of RSC 445-449.

If I may make a change to it? The players are actually historians being paid by the delegates at the peace conference. They are to ensure that the faction giving them money gets the lion's share of restitution, while making the enemies of the benefactor take the brunt of the punishment.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: Lexicon!

Postby wolf » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:45 pm

I have the attention span of a gnat so I only skimmed the original post. It sounds interesting but I got confused when you started to talk about phantom references and stuff like that. Maybe you answered that or someone else asked for clarification I dunno. On top of a short attention span I'm also lazy and didn't read the other posts.
Can you hold my hand? It's a big poop
User avatar
wolf
She-Barbarian of the North
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:36 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Oldrac the Chitinous » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:43 pm

Edminster wrote:I don't think it's been used before, but I would rather not play it.

Aw. It sounded cool.
Police said they spent some time working out if they could charge the man with being armed with a weapon, as technically he was armed with part of a fish.
User avatar
Oldrac the Chitinous
Chicken O' the Sea
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Location: The Perfect Stillness of the Deep

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Edminster » Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:17 am

wolf wrote:I have the attention span of a gnat so I only skimmed the original post. It sounds interesting but I got confused when you started to talk about phantom references and stuff like that. Maybe you answered that or someone else asked for clarification I dunno. On top of a short attention span I'm also lazy and didn't read the other posts.

I take it this means you will not be joining? It's definitely a game where you need an attention span. After all, you're helping to build an encyclopedia.

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Aw. It sounded cool.

Just because I don't want to play it doesn't mean that it won't be played. Once we get a few ideas, it'll be put up to a vote.

::edit::
Yes! New subforum!
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: Lexicon!

Postby mountainmage » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:27 pm

Well...it's not like I have anything better to do...

Dibs on last. I SO CALLED IT.

Also, now I have to SCROLL DOWN to see the general section. Thanks. Great.
No more white horses ♬ ♫ ♪ ılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılı ♪ ♫ ♬ for you to ride away
User avatar
mountainmage
Mage of the Mountains
 
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 11:42 am
Location: Right here. Right now.

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Edminster » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:31 pm

Man, I am looking forward to this thing. Zach claims that he's going to link it in the Newspost, so that should bring some interesting people in. I'm still pressing for a 'History of the Forum' lexicon, as written 200 years after the forum dies.

Also, ohsnap I'm a Mod. I knew that my campaign tactics would get me to win.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: Lexicon!

Postby mountainmage » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:36 pm

Mod of your own little island doesn't count. Feel free to edit this post to say you're right. And awesome. Because you could so totally do that now.
No more white horses ♬ ♫ ♪ ılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılı ♪ ♫ ♬ for you to ride away
User avatar
mountainmage
Mage of the Mountains
 
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 11:42 am
Location: Right here. Right now.

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Lethal Interjection » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:38 pm

As I mentioned elsewhere, I also like the idea of the History of the Board.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: Lexicon!

Postby Edminster » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:42 pm

You're right, mage. I could totally edit you into oblivion in this corner of the Forum. However, these mod powers are solely to be used for the betterment of the Lexicon. Damn my sense of responsibility towards the community!

And on that note, I'm off to go volunteer at the local library.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Next

Return to Lexicon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest