Lexicon!

[Laneth]

Corrected the beginning sentence. Formerly read 'Central to the belief system of the Decarnate Brotherhood', which would have been quite an oxymoron. Recall that 'Decarnate' means 'deprived or denied a physical existence', which was why they were the first people to exist solely on-line; a nice counterbalance to the Dendredicants and their strictly physical way of life.

Also, you need to cite an already-existing article.

It was my hope that Decarnate Brotherhood would have been written by now...I'll see what notes I have that might tie this into another article.

[Edminster]

Yeah, well... consider this a lesson in how you should always plan for the worst. Especially when the person you are relying on has stated that he is unreliable.

I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate that Phantom links are to be written <<like this>>. No colouring, no bolding. I add the colour later as a visual confirmation that I have added them into the 'Cyclopedia, and as a quick way for me to spot where to edit links in as they arrive. It honestly confuses the crap out of me when I see a new article already coloured, and it's not good to have a confused Lexicon Moderator because it lets in all sorts of continuity errors.

[Laneth]

I do apologise - I just saw them done like that and thought I'd help by doing it up front...

Also - lesson learned. Start earlier, not the morning of the deadline...

[Edminster]

You're not the only one who was doing it, and I did figure it was being done in the spirit of helping; that's why I wasn't all fire and brimstone with the reminder.

I was honestly surprised by your request for a topic so late in the round, as I figured that you had in fact found inspiration for a new article. This round, don't meditate for a topic until the last minute. If you've not got anything by three days, you're probably not getting anything.

[mountainmage]

I think I've realized why I've become disillusioned with Lexicon. A great deal of the articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with SMBC or the forum. I mean when we first started Ed said "Let's do a history of the forum" or whatever, I took that as "Make people, places, events on the forum and SMBC into real-life happenings." Apparently, others interpreted this as "Make stuff up and spuriously connect it to the forum/smbc." Perhaps the lexicon needs articles like this to evolve our forum into something bigger than itself, but I don't know. Maybe I'm just weird like that.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

You are correct, I neglected to take Summer Time Dilation into account.

Fun fact: It's actually called Time Dilatation.
Yeah, I don't like it either. I'd been calling it Time Dilation for years.

Should I change the links that I turned red in my latest article back, or would that just make things worse?

To MountainMage:
I don't think there's any reason the two have to be incompatible. Just write the articles the way you would otherwise, and throw something in to the effect of "these things happened on the Inter-Net." It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that none of us (maybe excepting Cirtur, if he's going to run with the Tree Cult deal) really have a good handle on what it's like to not be wired up to the internet, so we'd write Internet happenings as if they were more real.
That being said, with Edminster moderating, I think you're the only person playing who'd be capable of writing about major forum events. Well, from memory, anyway. The rest of us just got here.

[Laneth]

Mage, I understand, but especially for myself, I've not been around the Forum long enough to write a decent enough post, linked into some of the other posts that have been written.

The Lexicon has quickly become a work of crazed, half-baked fiction that, for me, is really enjoyable to participate in.

Actually, it's reawoken the writing spark in me and I'm not getting the drive and focus back enough that I'm on the potential list as a regular, paid contributor for a quarterly magazine here in Australia. And my sci-fi / fantasy story is percolating and getting ready to explode out onto the "page" soon.


Ed - I understand, and apologise for not coming back into the Lexicon sooner to request a topic - I have been extremely distracted this week. I'm stressing out more than I thought I would with my boss in China for three weeks...I'm running the show and I think I've lost more hair in the last 4 days than I have in the past 4 years...

Topic Letter E huh? *thinks*

To Oldrac - come on man! Catch me up and we can get special titles together! I've only got 30 more posts after this one!

[Edminster]

I think I've realized why I've become disillusioned with Lexicon. A great deal of the articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with SMBC or the forum. I mean when we first started Ed said "Let's do a history of the forum" or whatever, I took that as "Make people, places, events on the forum and SMBC into real-life happenings." Apparently, others interpreted this as "Make stuff up and spuriously connect it to the forum/smbc." Perhaps the lexicon needs articles like this to evolve our forum into something bigger than itself, but I don't know. Maybe I'm just weird like that.

In case you hadn't noticed, the articles that are recieving the awards and accolades are the ones that are steeped in Forum tradition and lore. That being said, in order to fully understand everything in context we need entries that are linked to the forum by very thin threads. Think of it like how you cannot attribute all of America's independance to the actions of the Colonists themselves; other countries had their hands in it, too.

As well, we are projecting rather far into the Future, making articles written near the latter part rather unrelated to Current Forum Events. There are still definite connections to the Forum, but the farther from Now that we get, the more it is about the Descendants than the Originals. Also consider that many of the people writing aren't as familiar with the Forum as you and I.

If I am understanding your complaint correctly, you want to see more emphasis on the First and Second Age, when we are either writing about what already happened or what will happen in the near future while attempting to deny the existence of anything outside of the Forum. Is this correct?

Should I change the links that I turned red in my latest article back, or would that just make things worse?

No, leave them be. I'll fix the colour as I go through and make sure the various references are set in the 'Cyclopedia.

[mountainmage]

If I am understanding your complaint correctly, you want to see more emphasis on the First and Second Age, when we are either writing about what already happened or what will happen in the near future while attempting to deny the existence of anything outside of the Forum. Is this correct?

I have no problem with writing things about the future, or if something is from "the outside world." For example, an article on Sarah Silverman (how she "stole" Zach's video game/aids joke) technically has nothing to do with the forum, but still has special meaning to SMBC. Using events and such from the forum and SMBC to create a future, again, is fine as well. But articles (NO OFFENSE TO THE AUTHORS. PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.) like "Ad Captandum Vulgus," "The Apostasy Trials," "The Blogosphere offensive," "Operation: Bisexual Counterparts," "Central Nuclear Core," "Dreadnought," and "The Department of Redundancy Department," while funny in their own right (I especially like how Tucker's mom is a dreadnought name), have no actual meaning to the forums or SMBC. Sure, by creating these articles we're giving meat to the forums, and allowing newer members to create material, but it all rings as rather false and shallow. Again, I am probably just weird. I mean, everyone knows that by now.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

Maybe you'll feel better about it once we've got a few more articles to connect the past and future articles a little better, so our future articles aren't just floating out there, unconnected to the actual past.
In any case, the first years of the forum are going to be essential to this endeavor, and since you're the only one here with any expertise in the matter, I think you ought to keep writing about that period.

(NO OFFENSE TO THE AUTHORS. PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.)

You're* lucky that ChooChooTrain showed up when he did, otherwise, we'd be havin' us a blood feud!
But I can only manage one of those at a time.

To Oldrac - come on man! Catch me up and we can get special titles together! I've only got 30 more posts after this one!

It's a little embarassing that I have to catch up with you in the first place, considering how recently you got here. Alack!


*I'm

[mountainmage]

In any case, the first years of the forum are going to be essential to this endeavor, and since you're the only one here with any expertise in the matter, I think you ought to keep writing about that period.

While I appreciate the compliment, Ed was here first. But under the oft-tyrannical hammer of Sheriff Dani, he chose to lurk. I joined after she had become inactive. I'm sure I'll regain interest soon, and when I do I'll make a D article (don't care about points). No guarantees on the E being on time though.

[Edminster]

Alright, I'm going to go through that list and tell you which ones are definitely related to the Forums. Before I do that, I must admit that you are right, none of those articles are about the Forum as we know it on first glance. However (as with all good fiction), to truly understand them you must dig under the surface and see how they really tick. Deeper meanings abound in many of the articles, it just takes some effort to reveal them.

Apostasy Trials
This one is one of my personal favourites, as it tells the story of you and I, Mage. While ostensibly it is about an influx of Trolls (something that we have luckily been free of), it is really about the players behind it; about how even though we often bicker, we do band together in the face of a common enemy.

Blogosphere Offensive
Remember how Zach calls people to vote at some Comic Popularity site? And how the turnout is amazing? And we conquer right up until the point where we forget? The Blogosphere Offensive is allegorical to that. Only, instead of being number one, we Dominate the Internet.

Central Nuclear Core
This one's easy. It is an apt description of the behaviour of the Forums during it's various periods of inactivity. To say that one of the fundamental mechanics of Forum participation is unrelated to the Forum confuses the hell out of me.

Department of Redundancy Department
Quite frankly this is a send-up of when GreenCrayon, Lethal Interjection, ruotwocone, TwoBuy, and we_are_138 became Mods to replace Sheriff Dani. Again, it's allegorical.

ACV, O:BC. and Dreadnought are the three that I agree with you about; they seem horrendously out-of-place. This is shown by the fact that none of them have recieved awards.

[mountainmage]

That's why I said spurious. The connection is there, but it's very, very loose. Not as loose as Tucker's mom, but you get the picture.

[Edminster]

Perhaps we are using different definitions of 'spurious'? For the record, I am using 'spurious' to mean 'not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source'. The connection to the Forum is there for each and every one of the articles I explained previously; if you remove the stories they are based on, the articles collapse. It is real, it is solid, and it is undoubtably of the Forum.

[mountainmage]

I'm using spurious to mean drawing connections using faulty logic.

For example, you could say that an increase in eating ice cream causes a rise in car theft.
That logic is spurious, but if you went further:
An increase in eating ice cream can mean that it's hot outside. If it's hot outside then people might leave the windows in their car open. Therefore, car theft increases.

So maybe an increase in ice cream consumption in SOME WAY causes an increase in car theft, but to say so without including the other facts is spurious.

Maybe these topics in some way relate to the forum, but without including real events, etc. from the forum's history, they're spurious.