SMBC Comics Forum

Edminster wrote:In writing the Introduction I thought it would be a good idea to make it clear that you can only cite phantom entries in the main entry itself, not in the comments that they spawn. Partly because the rules say so, partly because it's easier for me to consolidate phantoms that way.

I agree with that rule. The entry (the first post in the thread) should be the canon, while anything subsequent would merely be commentary. Therefore the citations in the comments would only be for reference, not to further the game.

That sounds like a lot of fun and I would like to sign up. About damn time this university got its act together.

So I'll state a few things for confirmation.

Each article has it's very own thread. You would write the article as the opening post, then further comments would be citations and whatnot.
The phantom citations are a bit sketchy to me. Does this mean that you have already decided what each article is about? I need to have a bit more explaination so that I don't mess things up.

Also, since each article has it's own thread, then this thread would be the best place to ask questions on the topic right?

Hopefully this clears up any confusion you may have had.

AHMETxRock wrote:Each article has it's very own thread.

Yes. This is correct.

AHMETxRock wrote:You would write the article as the opening post, then further comments would be citations and whatnot.

Not quite. The first post will contain the Main Article, followed by the Author's commentary. The Main Article must contain two citations. On the first turn, they are both phantom citations, meaning that they reference entries that have yet to be written. On subsequent turns, only one citation will be a phantom citation. The other one must be of an already-written article. Remember, you are not allowed to reference an article that you have previously written, nor are you allowed to write an article that you cited. This way everybody depends on the work of everybody else.

AHMETxRock wrote:The phantom citations are a bit sketchy to me. Does this mean that you have already decided what each article is about? I need to have a bit more explaination so that I don't mess things up.

Phantom Citations are named when a player writes an entry and references an unwritten article by writing the title of it <<like this>>. By way of example, in my Ascendency and Return of offce30 article I reference both the <<Regulars>> and the <<Server Rebalancing>>. While I am the originator of the topics and have my own idea about what they are about, I am not allowed to write them.

AHMETxRock wrote:Also, since each article has it's own thread, then this thread would be the best place to ask questions on the topic right?

This thread is the best place to ask questions about the game itself, questions on the articles should be directed towards the threads created by the articles themselves. I will be posting a thread talking about the background of the Project, where people can gather and chitchat in-character. The thread will also contain the current Turn, a list of already-written articles, and a list of Phantom Citations.

Ostensibly, the first few entries could have 2 phantom entries, yeah? Just so there isn't a pyramid structure of reference (and to get things going a little faster)?
Not really necessary, just a suggestion.
And are we allowed to have more than 2 references (one phantom, and one existing)? I can just see it being necessary/possible. We shouldn't get carried away, but one or two extra references wouldnt' be too bad.

Lethal Interjection wrote:Ostensibly, the first few entries could have 2 phantom entries, yeah? Just so there isn't a pyramid structure of reference (and to get things going a little faster)?
Not really necessary, just a suggestion.
And are we allowed to have more than 2 references (one phantom, and one existing)? I can just see it being necessary/possible. We shouldn't get carried away, but one or two extra references wouldnt' be too bad.

I think this is a good idea, but maybe we should restrict any extra references to the entries that already exist. Just so that we don't end up with too many more phantom entries than we have players.
Also, might it be worthwhile to have a sticky up to keep the current list of real and phantom entries, and maybe the current rules, for easy reference?

Sticky with current rules and such is forthcoming, trust me in that I have been planning. I'm not currently at my house, so all the files that I have already written are inaccessible to me until further notice. Game will start late Sunday/Early Monday. The list of current players is in the OP of this thread, let me know if I missed anybody.

In looking at the rules again, you actually make three citations on each turn after the first. One to an already written entry, and two to phantoms. I do agree that we should be allowed to cite more than one existing entry, but definitely say to not over-do it.

I have a question, if this game is similar to an encyclopedia of topic "X", then why is the game called Lexicon, which is more like a dictionary?

It was originally called "Mexican," but that made even less sense. So they changed a couple letters.
Also, you may consider me a confirmed author.

Surprise! The game begins. I will get a more streamlined ruleset up shortly.

So, who goes next?

Whoever wants to write a gorram entry. Everyone's supposed to contribute to every letter.

Gorram?

Oh, dear. It looks like I am going to have some catching-up to do.

mountainmage wrote:Gorram?

Firefly (Serenity) reference. Mostly. I don't know what it actually means in Mandarin (if it would be an applicable swear).