Lexicon/DiscussionArchive

Lexicon of Elder Days General Discussion Archive

Entries

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Back to the Lexicon

Back to the Lexicon Discussion Page

---

For the purposes of making the game more open to casual players, allowing them to step in and add entries at random, I suggest that we set a minimum number of entries for a particular letter, but not retain a maximum. A letter's turn is (some period, maybe about two days), and no entries after that letter may be written until the turn ends, but entries may be added before it. - willows

Sounds good :) - DS

Should we be inventing new fictitious names with which to sign our work? - Quendalon

Hm, good question; I think I will, but as long as you sign consistently, there is no need. If we all start using pseudonyms, I'll put up a Scholars page. I'm going to go plug this in the forums now.

As a note: When making phantom citations, please add a title on the appropriate page, to be filled in when appropriate. I've done this for the existing entries. - willows

To clarify the setup a little more, should people strive to fill phantom entries, or are they encouraged to take any interesting hooks from a previous entry and run with them? Case in point, my A entry, being a bit too long, offers a number of hooks someone could run with, though, of course, only two are noted at the bottom. Secondly, am I missing some mechanic, or will the letter B have a ton of references to A entries, and letter Y to entries Z (Not that it matters overmuch.)? ~Jabberwocky

Well, we should try to fill in phantom citations, but if there are none, then there's no reason not to pick up hooks from previous articles (this is important anyway, since after the intital turn, you're supposed to refer to previously existing entries as well as making new ones up). As for article length, the entries we have written are dramatically shorter than NobilisWiki's; they have individual article pages. I'm not going to pose any artificial article length restriction when the longer ones turn out so interestingly. You're not missing any mechanic... the B entries will probably be linked very tightly to A and each other. - willows

I'd like to get in on this... I already have the personality too. - Killed

There's some very cool stuff in here so far, and we're only on the 'A's! Now, can participants add more than one entry per letter? And I assume we can make up new entries for letters that don't have enough phantom slots written up (as will be likely for 'B', 'C' and 'D')? - Quendalon

We're probably getting on toward the point where we can add some 'B' entries. Oh, and hi Jere! - Quendalon

Agreed; let's start on B! I think 6 A entries is cool. Can we agree to a turnaround time of, say, 2 days per letter? - willows

Two days seems fairly reasonable. Also, as long as people are interested, maybe we should keep going with three entries (still 1 'real' and 2 phantom) and loop around the alphabet at the Zs. Cause this seems neat :) - DS

If people are still interested, we should close off the Lexicon as normal at 'Z', then start a new Lexicon with new subject matter. Maybe a lexicon of the Scarlet Realm, or of Yu-Shan, or of the Violet Coast, or whatever. - Quendalon

One more mechanical question: once one cites a previous entry without filling a phantom entry, it would stand to reason that they should update the citations on the initial entry to include their newing added addition, correct? ~Jabberwocky

Um, yes, that's a good idea. (A confusing one, but...) - willows

Not really. Think of it as an encyclopedia. An encylopedia can cite an entry without the original entry citing back. So if entry Frog cites Green and Newt, and entry Toad references Frog, theres no reason now for Frog to reference Toad. Sure you could go back to Frog and referece Toad, but theres little reason too. The Phantom entries really exist as a form of constrained writing, to give the exercise its form and an element of game play. -- Jeremiah Genest

The Wiki is also smart enough to search for backlinks for you. In the perfect world, you could put a little code at the bottom of the page that listed the backlinks automatically; that would be nice. - willows

Does this version of Wiki not have a backlinks plugin? Personally I just rely on clicking on the title for such things, but I can see where others might find it useful. -- Jeremiah Genest

I'm not aware if it does. Clicking on the title works well enough, anyways. - willows

How long are the turns? Is it just a case of everyone keeping an eye on the pages and making sure they don't get too far ahead of or too far behind the rest of the players? What happens if sonme one want to join half way through a round? Will it break the game? -- Voidstate

Voidstate, there's no problem with joining in the middle, as long as you don't post a phantom entry that none of the active players can fill in. (I don't think this has happened yet - it looks like someone hasn't posted a 'B' entry yet, and they can take the Butterflies - but it's something to watch for.) - Quendalon

Time to start on the 'C' entries, maybe? - Quendalon

Shouldn't we wait till tomorrow? -Dim

Fine with me. I only brought it up because we're scheduled for a two-day turnaround, and 'B' came up two days ago. - Quendalon

Well, we're now short a B entry... does someone want the Butterflies? I couldn't resist starting on C. - willows

Okay, sorry, Quen. I didn't realize we had started B earlier. So...who'se up for some C entries? *dashes off to brainstorm* -Dim

Have we started C yet? I took the Butterflies already, so that shouldn't be a problem any more. -EC

Quendalon - I don't see much of a problem with 'orphan' entries being created. Already the game isn't running strictly by the rules and people are starting on future letters out of sequence. I'm sure some people will enjoy going back after the round is over and filling in the blanks in a way which ties the whole thing together. Either that, or people could keep joining and adding to the Lexicon as they progress through it and these 'orphans' can act as hooks to allow future players to tie their entries into the older ones. - Voidstate

I have a rules question. When you are citing a previous entry, and you are completing a phantom entry, does the citation have to refer to the entry which already points to the entry you are writing or should you tie an unrelated entry into your entry? In other words should the "already-written entry" be a) the one which points to the entry you are creating or b) an unrelated (but already existing) entry. The rules could be read either way:

<<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.>>

- Voidstate

Not sure, but you definitely should only reference one entry, even if there are several already-written entries that tie into your own. - Quendalon

I agree - Voidstate

Things seem to have slowed down on our Lexicon. Is anyone else going to add some 'C' entries? Shall we soon move on to 'D'? - Quendalon

I've been uninspired as of late... rather, I've been playing Knights of the Old Republic. I think if a few more people could be encouraged to join in before the letters were too far advanced, things would be a bit more interesting all in all. I've only got, like, twenty or thirty hours left of KotOR, so I'll... catch up after that. ~Jabberwocky

I have a rather radical recomendation. Why don't we all just add entries as we like, though making sure that any we add are linked to an already written one, and then you only make one phantom entry. Then at the end of a pre-determined period of time we cease creating phantom entries until we have fleshed out all the existing ones. Sure, this might lead to an irregular looking Lexicon, but who says all the letters of the alphabet must be equally represented. Just a thought. LEt me know what you all think. -EndlessChase

Or, as a compromise, why not change the rules so that players can add to the letters in any order but should only add to each letter once? - Voidstate

And I have added a link to the Lexicon in the homepage. I'm not sure my description is the most snappy or informative so if anyone wants to change it I don't mind. I was going to add it to ImportantLinks but couldn't decide which category to use. Any ideas? - Voidstate

The matter of people starting on letters out of sequence is mostly a matter of people posting before they have read the rules. Honestly, I don't see any reason to continue that: It is a matter of but a moment's cogitation to devise a new and alphabetically-appropriate title to an otherwise structurally good entry (by which I mean one with the requisite references), so why seed needless disorder?

Ideally, we should each write exactly one article per letter, because the whole point of this exercise is to write within boundaries which, though they are loose, are present and have perceptible force. I see that we have slowed down in filling our entries, though; maybe as more phantoms appear (thus constraining us to write them) we'll see what the Nobilis group did - people jumping for entries that they wanted to write.

As for multiple back-references, I have been playing with "1 existing page" as a minimum, and making an effort to link other sections of the Wiki into my entries as well, so that this isn't an isolated phenomenon. I don't know what Neel's intention was, though.

So what happened to the people who still haven't written C entries?

- willows

I agree with everything Willows wrote. (There's a shocker.) - Quendalon

I have completed my C entry. When are we moving to D? -EndlessChase

I agree about allowing multiple back-references. If the general consensus is that we only add one entry to each letter and keep moving forward in sequence, that's fine by me too.

I'm still not sure about this though: "When you are citing a previous entry, and you are completing a phantom entry, does the citation have to refer to the entry which already points to the entry you are writing or should you tie an unrelated entry into your entry?". Any ideas?

- Voidstate

I think either's a viable choice; I would choose the second if I had an elegant way to do it, but there's nothing independently wrong with the first. - willows

We may want to start moving forward with 'D' entries. Better to play with a smaller pool of active players than to let the whole thing die of stagnation. - Quendalon

I officially appoint you "guy who decides when the next letter starts." - willows

I say let's start D already; it's been more than 2 days. -Dim

Get ready... get set... GO! - Quendalon

Thanks! It's an excellent fit. Next time, I'll call dibs in advance. :) - Quendalon\\

Once again, I'd like to encourage people to dive in and participate. Feel free to add brief entries, like a paragraph or so; just because the rest of us are going way over the word limit is no reason to feel compelled to overexert yourself in order to participate. - Quendalon

It occurred to me tht the players list might seem rather exclusive to anyone thinking of joining, so I've added a note to the front page encouraging them to join in. That OK with everyone? - Voidstate

Well posted! Thanks, Voidstate. - Quendalon

E, anyone? - Voidstate

Since we seem to have five active participants, I recommend that we do not allow the number of phantom entries for any given letter to go over 5. For instance, 'Serenity, Gift of' should probably go under 'Gift of Serenity.' Also, sooner or later we'll hit a place when we have too many phantom entries; any thoughts? - Quendalon

Makes sense to me. Fixed. -EndlessChase

Once we can no longer make phantoms, we can do one of two things: start phantoms for a new Lexicon (probably not preferable, as it will contaminate these articles with data from other time periods), or we could just stop making phantoms. - willows

Hmm I have to say this looks interesting. If I find the time I might start in on this. 'A' here I come (hopefully) Alabrax

Welcome Alabrax! I recommend coming in at 'E' (or wherever we happen to be at the time), so that we're all at the same letter together. Lexicographers Unite! - Quendalon

Is that allowed? I didn't figure it would be after reading the rules. Alabrax

Put it this way - if you're playing catchup, you lose the opportunity and benefit of filling in phantoms, which is (IMO) what makes this fun at all. So jump in, and if you feel like it, I'm sure no one will object to your adding catchup entries later. Vive la Lexicon! - willows

Or if you really wanted, you could still come in at A and just add entries at a rate of more than one every few days until you catch up. The rules have generally been interpreted pretty loosely so far, so it shouldn't matter. - Voidstate

On another note, I had an idea for an alternative version of this game called The Hundred Kingdoms. It would work on a similar basis, but be a history or guide to the area, with each entry making up a short guide to a specific kingdom, and the links could be in the form of notable allies, enemies, trade partners, etc. from the other kingdoms. It could end up actually being a useful source for GMs running games in the Hundred Kingdoms... Sound good? - Voidstate

I'm game for a Lexicon of the Hundred Kingdoms (using extant Lexicon rules, natch), but I have my doubts about running it concurrently with the current Lexicon; people seem to be having enough issues with time and inspiration for the current Lexicon. - Quendalon

Sure. I didn't really think we should play it yet. I just thought I'd field the idea while it was fresh in my mind. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. - Voidstate

Well if I do find time to do this I will start at A. Just so I am straight on this, after my "A" entry I should then place 2 Phantoms in letters that you all have not done yet. Now to find my inspiration :) You know another Lexicon type thing that could be done with this is system like this only instead of being a lexicon it could be Dragonblooded NCP descriptions. The level that these would intertwine would probably be as close to the tangled mess that Realm relations and politics as we will get. Alabrax

Yeah, I would make your phantoms G or later, as it doesn't look like anyone else is planning to join in at this stage. I noticed that both X and Y are still empty... - Voidstate

If you're going to be playing catchup by starting from 'A', I recommend you do it quickly, or else you'll never catch up, and thus you'll never actually end up completing other peoples' phantom entries, which is half of the fun of the game. (The other half being the fun of seeing what other people do with your phantom entries.) - Quendalon

Is it too early to be starting F d'ya reckon? - Voidstate

Of course not. Get started right away! - Quendalon

Sorry still no "A" for me yet. I have spent my non-work time here at work, writing letters to NPCs and PCs in a Dark Age Vamp game I am playing in. Although I have taken time to read over some of the things already in the Lexicon so I can link my stuff to those easier. Alabrax

If you have time issues, you should definitely go with the current letter rather than starting at 'A'. Not only will you be playing the game as it's meant to be played, but you'll be able to jump in and out whenever you have time; you can do 'F', take a break, do 'J', take a break, do 'R'... etc. - Quendalon

Your right... I will come in on F. Seeing as I am starting late should I claim one of the phantoms already under F or should I start a whole new entry under that letter? Sorry I seem to be so timid with this, I just don't want to be the guy that comes late to the game and screws everything up. Alabrax

Don't worry, you're not screwing anything up. Either create a new entry or claim a phantom, whichever you'd like more. This should be fun, so don't worry so much. Enjoy! - Quendalon

I should have mine written and posted tomorrow after noon. I had some unexpected computer issues today that ate up my lunch, which was when I had planned to finish it up. Sorry to slow things down. Alabrax

I was thinkin' of doing the Feral Dragon Kings entry, if I do it'll be tomorrow as well. I hope I get it right. -MidKnight

Hi guys. This is one of the coolest games I've seen in a really long while, so I think I'm going to join. This is an advance apology: if I mess up (I don't think I completely get it all yet) then I'm sorry. Mainly, I'm just confused because this little page seems to give a lot of, er, mixed signals shall we say? Plus, I have 1 Wits: I think slowly and get confused easily.  ;)\\ So ... since you're all about done with F, should I wait until you're on to G to join in?\\ On phantom citations: so we can still make up new ones, but we're encouraged to fill in the phantoms. Should we wait to make new ones up until all the phantoms are done for a letter?\\ Everyone can only do one per letter, so this means everyone can fill in one phantom or make a new one up, right? Not fill in one phantom and make a new one up?\\ Why isn't it okay to make phantom citations for letters that have already passed? It seems like this would make the Lexicon a little more balanced, especially as players keep joining. Or am I missing something again?\\ Thanks,\\ ~ Shataina

I'm trying to figure out what the ruleset we are working under actually looks like, and placing that on the rules page as I do... so in the meantime, do what you feel is right, and we'll be gentle about trying to clarify what we're doing (: As for Flying Dismissal - the only reason I didn't make that a phantom is that it was the same letter, and I didn't expect anyone to take it. You're totally welcome to, though(: - willows

Hi MidKnight, Shaitana, Alabrax! Just to reassure you, you really don't have to worry about messing up. The fact is that we are now playing with rules which differ in several ways to the original ones on the front page. In fact several people have "messed up" (someone put Grassblade in without referencing anything and Arbane the Terrible showed up, posted an entry in Q and T and left) and the game is still going and no-one is having less fun. In fact, if you do something different, it's quite possible that everyone else will decide your way is better and all start doing it that way, too. - Voidstate

There's a difference between 'try and stick to the rules but don't worry if you make a mistake' and 'ignore the rules and do whatever you want'. - Quendalon

I will note that the rules aren't as clear as they should be, and there are some things implicit in the rules that should have been spelled out clearly:\\ 1) All entries other than 'A' should start as phantom entries. We didn't think of this at the start; it means that half of all the phantoms created in the first round should have been 'B' phantoms, which was not the case.\\ 2) Corrolary: everyone should be paying attention to upcoming phantoms to make sure that we have the right number for each letter. Right now, willows and I are playing watchdog and making sure that we have enough phantoms for the next letter, so that we don't, say, find that seven players have only three 'G' phantoms.\\ 3) The rules assume that the number of players will remain unchanged through the entirety of the game. This clearly isn't the case here, but there's no reason that adding new players should impact significantly upon play. It seems easy enough to just grab an unclaimed phantom at the current letter and continue from there.\\ - Quendalon

My "F" is up... although I just read through it and I never explained way it was called the Fugazi Jihad. Oops! I'll have to tweek that. Alabrax

Hey should we start calling dibs on the "G"'s now? Also in my Fugazi Jihad I had a few comments about the Lace and Paper War, was that a no no? or should I do something so that who ever does that one is sure to see my entry? Alabrax

Sure, call dibs on 'G'. And you can make as many references as you want; it's a limit of two links, which has nothing to do with the body of the text. You can talk about the Lace and Paper War without linking to it. - Quendalon

Yeah, but it's a misdemeanor, not a felony. Let it stand.  :) - Quendalon

As long as you make only two new phantoms it doesn't really matter how many past entries you link to. - Voidstate

Wouldn't it make it easier if we noted which citation each phantom originally came from next to the phantom? I've done this next to my phantoms; let me know if there's a reason we haven't been doing so.\\ ~ Shataina

Sorry about my slowness. I've been going through a mild slump, and one of the things that gets affected the most is my creative drive. I'll catch up when things work themselves out. -EndlessChase

Shataina I was thinking something along those same lines. When I was looking at the phantoms out there right now I really had no idea where they all came from. Alabrax

While a phantom may only have one link to it, it may be referenced in more than one entry. (E.g. the Fire Chronicle was referenced in at least three entries, even though only one of them linked to it.) As a result, noting a single source can be deceptive. - Quendalon

Well then maybe we would make notes on all phantoms that we mention before they are written. This would help keep conflicting info to a level that at least made sense. I know some conflicts make things more real, but we dont want one person to say something like "The Lemur Incident" was a really just a poem, then the person that writes the Lemur Incident talks about self replicating demon monkeys from beyond space and time. I mean if we are going to have conflicts dont we want them to be the type were the type of money is in question, like some might say it was spider or gibbons, not that it was something completely different. Alabrax

IMO, this is basically the scholar's responsibility - to be sure he is factually consistent with his sources - though I like Shataina's idea somewhat, particularly given that this Wiki's search function is wacky. - willows

Why don't we just make a note next to the phantom whenever we cite it? So all the relevant citations will be noted next to the phantom when whoever writes the entry writes it, and they won't have to attempt to make the Wiki-search work.\\

~ Shataina

What's the problem with the Wiki's search? I've never had a problem before. - Voidstate

Hey CrownedSun! Welcome to the Lexicon! Now that you're in, I recommend that you join us in the current letter rather than trying to catch up by running through all the intervening letters. There's one phantom entry left under 'G' ([[[Lexicon/DiscussionArchive/Gathering]] Storm Assault|Gathering Storm Assault]]) that needs to be filled in before we can move on to 'H'. Would you care to take it? - Quendalon

Thanks! And, hmmm, sure, I'll take it. Give me a bit to think, and I'll have Chaste Smile discover something about said school of warfare later on tonight and we'll move on. Though I AM going to catch up;P -CrownedSun

The problem with playing catch-up is that it throws off the balance of phantom entries. The core of the game is playing off of other people's phantom entries; everyone's only supposed to create ONE new entry (under 'A') for the course of the whole game. (Those of us who started the game off didn't quite figure it out at first, which is why there's a bunch of new entries under 'B' and 'C', but we did figure it out eventually.) The more brand-new entries are created, the sooner we have to stop creating new phantoms by way of running out of space for them. - Quendalon

By that logic, at the very least, everyone should be able to create one entry under A.  :) So my starting in A wasn't bad, per se;P *grins* -CS

Fair enough! By the way, CS & Willows, your 'G' articles have three phantoms each. Getting greedy, are we? :) - Quendalon

Nope, just a stupid idijit;P I could have sworn that rule said 'one backlink and three phantoms', but re-reading it, it obviously doesn't. Errr, I mean; WHAT three phantoms:P Mine only has two. Bad willows! *innocent hum*-CS

Not at all, just, uhm, helpful. I'm actually referring to a previously defined phantom which I talk about in the article, to make it easier for an enterprising scholar to use the backlinks tool to see what previous entries are relevant. (Clearly this is non-mandatory; you, Q, don't do it in any of your later articles that refer to the Fire Chronicle)- willows

Worked up an Entry for the Hours of Suffering and posted it. Since I wasn't around today, wanted to get a jump on it.  :) -MidKnight

Sorry Willows, didn't realize that Harbor of Stars was a repeat. My apologies for going off half-cocked. - Quendalon

Hey, why don't people maybe start putting a couple back-phantoms up? Like phantom entries that link to back entries? Then those of us who joined late could, perhaps, fill in our early blanks.\\ As near as I can tell, this is less likely to throw off the Lexicon's balance than to restore it, since if we have more players at the end than at the beginning, we're gonna be running out of phantoms a lot, ne? Unless we decide that we can pick more than 2 per letter, but it seems like it'd be more efficient and amusing to let the rest of us catch up.\\ 'Course, I'm biased.  :)\\ ~ Shataina

Lexicon is, at its heart, a game of resource management. It's meant to go only one way. If we start making back-phantoms, and those pages have forward-phantoms, etc, we'll never finish this Lexicon. And I very much intend to finish it. Then we can start another (a Hundred Kingdoms Lexicon has been proposed), and you can be in that one from the start.  :) - Quendalon

I dunno, having new people join can have the same problem. Since the more people playing, the more phantoms -- either that, or you run out of things for them to do. On that subject, I think I'm going to skip the current letter -- nothing not dibbed in H appeals to me, so I'll wait for I:) -- CrownedSun

Okay, but the problem is that you've / we've already thrown off the resources we're managing by allowing people to join midway through. Wouldn't it be more efficient resource management, if we're gonna let people do that, to let them make back-entries so that the general balance of citations is preserved? Otherwise, like I said, we're going to have to start making more phantom citations per entry, etc.\\ I mean, I know it's meant to go one way, etc, but that rule only really works if you have a set number of players from beginning to end.\\ Also, the game is under a time limit. We're going to finish it in ... what, another 30 days or so? As long as people finish back-citations in time for the ending of the entire endeavour, I'm not sure I understand why back-citations are going to hold up the game. It's not like we go back for the laggarts; they just have to do extra back-work during the letters that we're in the middle of.\\ We just need to have some good editing to make sure that too many back-citations aren't made. Maybe people could note their names on letter-pages for which they need citations, and then other people could keep in mind that citations are needed?\\ Still, if you really think that it'll unbalance the game to let us do back-citations, then I bow to your judgment -- you've been playing longer than me, after all :)\\ ~ Shataina\\ ... cross-edited with CrownedSun ... I think we may have made basically the same point, but whatever.

I think you're laboring under a misunderstanding of the mathematics of the situation. Given that we create two new phantom entries whenever we fill in an entry, it's literally impossible for us to run out of phantom entries. As it is, I think we'll fill up our quota of phantom entries somewhere around, oh, 'N' or thereabouts. (Neel clearly didn't know what he was doing when he first wrote the rules.) Which may be a problem in and of itself, but not one that supports your proposal. - Quendalon

<laugh> Wow, you're right. I hadn't bothered working out the math because I assumed that the game was set up so that there would only be as many phantoms as needed, but apparently not.\\ Maybe Neel intended for some phantoms to remain blank -- for the players to have a wider range of choice, when choosing a phantom to fill, than "first come, first serve, and if you come last, you're boned".\\ Regardless, I'm still puzzled by your assertion that we won't finish the Lexicon if we allow back-entries. Was I wrong about the time limit?\\ ~ Shataina

OK - how about this? We allow back entries, but only if the person making it finds a new player who promises to fill the entry. For example, on the letters discussion page, Shataina could request a phantom B entry and then I or someone else could, in addition to the two forward phantoms they write for their next entry, also put a phantom in B. Then, because it was a back-phantom (to coin a new term) she would only make a single phantom forward of the current letter to avoid weighting the lexicon too much towards the end of the alphabet. Unless, of course, someone else requests a back phantom on the letters page, in which case she could provide it and would therefore have two phantoms from her entry. All this would require is requests for phantoms in a specific letter being posted on the letters page and other people calling dibs on providing that phantom.\\ \\ I think having more people being involved as widely as possible and having as much fun as possible is more important than sticking unerringly to the rules. But in this way, we would ensure that the spirit of the game (ie. filling phantoms) isn't disrupted. - Voidstate

That was just what I was thinking, Voidstate. And what could actually make that even easier might be allowing people to replace as-yet-unwritten phantoms in earlier entries with back-phantoms that they didn't phantom because they would have been back-phantoms at the time.\\ What happens according to the rules if no one writes a given phantom? Does it just get erased?\\ ~ Shataina

On the subject of dibbing: this was originally intended as a fail-safe to ensure that two people didn't start filling in the same phantom at the same time (as happened with willows and I for the Diaries of Justicar Crystal Raven). As such, it was only necessary for the current letter. I recommend that we purge all dibbing ahead of the current letter (H?) and dib only the current letter as it arises. As with the back-phantom issue, though, I'm waiting to hear from willows on his perspective. - Quendalon

I don't suppose we could make it customary to make the phantom-updates minor instead of major? There are a lot of them in a given day and they tend to take up a good bit of space on the recent news bits. It's not like we particularly need most of them right that instant, right?? --CrownedSun

I always make my phantom-updates minor. - Quendalon, smugly

By the way, who considers themselves active players at this point? I noticed that Dim and CrownedSun got blocked out of last round for lack of available phantoms. An accurate census of players will help us make sure we have the right number of phantoms each round. (Then again, being one or two phantoms short definitely encourages players to put their dibs in right away - the 'H' round may well have been the fastest one yet, coming after some very slow rounds.) - Quendalon

I consider myself an active player, in any event, assuming I can get a word in edge-wise;P - CrownedSun

I too! - Telgar

Back-phantoms: I'm not sure I get it, but it doesn't strike me as a bad idea. Might as well try it out of people want to. I mean, it's even more restrictive than keeping up, after all, as long as you assume something like, "You can't complain if you don't like the backphantom you get." - willows

Just as a note: I know that slippery-slope arguments are aggravating and often misleading, but if a new player comes in at 'X', I don't want to feel that the game is on hold until that player fills in 'A' thru 'W'. :) - Quendalon

I was under the impression that backphantoms were ancillary to ordinary play, rather than substitutionary for it. - willows

I would like to propose that, henceforth, when a new entry is written, it contains only one brand-new phantom. The other phantom should be a duplicate of an existing phantom. This should slow things down a bit, though we'll still run out of room for new phantoms well before we hit 'Z'. Thoughts? - Quendalon

I think, perhaps, you might be overthinking this a bit Quendalon:) Anyway, if you want to lower the number of phantoms I would strongly recommend just making it "only one phantom". Having to link back to a phantom and link forward to one can be quite limiting, and should probably be optional. --CrownedSun

What do you mean by 'link back' to a phantom? Entries that have been filled in are no longer phantoms; all phantoms are forward. - Quendalon

Excuse me, 'link back' to a regular entry:) Just a mistype.

"You can't complain if you don't like the backphantom you get." - Good point. Provided this is agreed, though, I don't see a problem with 'back-phantoms'. - Voidstate

Is it just me, or is the Lexicon excessively skimpy when it comes to detailing the Dragon-Blooded Shogunate? - Quendalon

Well, technically the beginning of the Shogunate is where the Lexicon's timespan ends, right? - w

Is it? I assumed that "to the Terrestrial Shogunate" meant "until the end of the Terrestrial Shogunate," but I guess that it could as easily mean "until the start of the Terrestrial Shogunate." Either one's fine with me, as long as I know which it is. - Quendalon

Fucking informal language; I dunno. - willows

Well, since I think we have all of, oh, one entry dealing with the Shogunate, and that one being at the start of it, I think we'll go with your intention. :) - Quendalon

BTW, in preparation, could I have clarification of exactly how backphantoms work? They have no phantoms, one phantom, or what?? -CrownedSun

A backphantom is identical in all ways to an ordinary phantom, except that it is earlier in the alphabet. - willows

So you give the backphantoms the normal two phantoms forward?? I thought that was undesirable, creating 'excess phantoms' or something? - CrownedSun

Well, remember that forward phantoms are allowed to be preexisting phantoms. I think we are aiming at 8 entries per letter, now. - willows

Given that we will run out of phantom entries soon, it seems clear to me that, at that point, it will become necessary to close off the Lexicon from new entrants. We should probably figure out roughly when that will be. Thoughts? - Quendalon

Aha! I have found a way to comment on this page! Fear me! <raise fist>\\ Er ... <cough> ahem. So. Quendalon, I'm confused. We'll have too many phantoms, right? So why don't we continue to let people join?\\ In order to keep from a complete overload on phantoms which no one will fill, maybe after, say, the letter N, we could keep letting people join but reduce the number of phantom citations to, say, 1 per entry.\\ Since after around N, if we keep the number of players constant, we'll slowly end up with somewhere around double the number of phantom citations we actually need, right? So this way we'll be more likely to fill in the vast numbers of extra phantoms. We can try to control the phantom overload by maybe reducing the number of phantom citations per letter to 1?\\ ~ Shataina

Dibbing is to make sure that no one pre-empts you halfway through your writing an entry. It is not to secure yourself a slot a week before you write your entry. If you're not actually writing an entry, do not dib it! It's not fair to others, who may want to write an entry but are blocked out by someone else who isn't even writing.

Telgar, MidKnight, please either finish your J entries or undib them so that Willows can fill in an entry. - Quendalon

Quendalon, could you or someone make the 'dibs' conventions explicit in the rules? It would have saved me, at least, a lot of trouble to have them spelled out there... -AlecAustin

I know how dibbing works Quend, and I'll happily make it clear for Alex and other new players. The Wiki as been down for a good bit of time recently and homework has piled up on me. I'll get my J entry up by tomorrow or so. - Telgar

Justicar of Midnight undibbed, I won't have this be so important my real life has to be put on hold. Especially, like Telgar said, when the wiki has been down. -MidKnight

Uhhh, this is supposed to be fun for everyone, right? Both people who want to participate and people who are already participating. I think jumping on people for not getting stuff done right away-- especially when, as previously mentioned, the wiki has been up for reading, it hasn't been up much for editing-- is not conducive to anyone's fun-having, or attracting anyone new to have fun with us. Therefore, understanding on the part of EVERYone-- those who want to participate when it's crowded, and those who are participating, albeit slowly-- would be for the best. (In other words, this is the wiki, not real life. Whatever goes on here does not drastically alter the fate of the universe. Let's all be nice and trust in the judgement of those participating.. I don't think anyone is trying to be a Big Hogging Meanie here.) --Dissolvegirl

My apologies; I realized I'd gone over the top, snippiness-wise, but the wiki went down before I could alter my post. Hopefully it isn't my browser that's breaking the wiki.  :( Anyway, I'm sorry about being such a pain about various Lexicon things. It's just a game, not something to attack people over. I'll rein in my misdirected zeal in the future. - Quendalon

With the Nobilis Lexicon wrapped up, I've put some of my comments over on 20x20 Room (where this all began). I'd love it if folks came by and posted your specific thoughts on the implementation of Exalted, since your doing several things quite differently. -- Jeremiah Genest

I'll definitely do so. - willows

I can't help wondering if the slowdown in new entries is because of entries getting longer over the last few letters. It certainly means more to read through before starting an entry, and if you have to read through the backlinks for that entry too, it can become pretty daunting (for me at least). Are people finding that? Should we be a little more strict on entry length for a bit to balance things out? After all shorter entries also mean less chance of contradicting something written previously. - Voidstate

I personally have yet to write my K (and my I backlink) because I'm on a roll with a different writing project, and I really don't want to confuse the two. But I'll get on it ASAP. Anyway.. I'm not sure that it's the length of entries, I think perhaps it's a combination of the Wiki having issues and a lot of phantoms being either overly or barely mentioned. There's a happy medium, it's just tricky to find it, I know I'm certainly a culprit of just mentioning something in passing. When you do that, if other people mention it in passing (but don't phantom, since there's already one) it's easy to end up with contradictions. --Dissolvegirl

I've discovered that doing a search for the subject of your phantom, using the Wiki's search feature, easily pulls up all extant info on that phantom. It's great for avoiding contradictions, even for stuff only mentioned in passing. - Quendalon

Thanks for the awesome tip, Quendalon. :) --Dissolvegirl

This page is getting a bit long; it's taking a while to load everything on it. We might want to break it up, erase some of the older comments, something. Otherwise it's going to get unwieldy. --CrownedSun

I'd suggest dumping most of it into an archive page. I'm too lazy to actually do it though. :) - Quendalon

Is there a list of unresolved phantoms from the earlier rounds, since I'd like to join in... -- Senji

If I were you, I'd take one of the current letter's phantoms and then request a phantom on the Backlink discussion page. And welcome to the game. Good to have you playing. - Voidstate

Hey Senji! Yay for another player! Just a couple notes:\\ You have three phantom citations in your Justicar of Midnight entry. There are only supposed to be two phantoms per entry, even if one is a backlink. (This mistake has been made before, so I'm going to make a note about it on the backlinks page unless someone objects.)\\ Also, you write your own original A entry -- you don't need a backlink for it. :)\\ I'll do some backlinks for you as soon as we get past K (if that ever happens ... <cough>).\\ ~ Shataina\\ PS: It occurs to me that I should have put this on the Article Discussions page. Sorry about that.

It's been several weeks since we moved on to K now. What do people think about moving on to the next letter to keep the momentum going on this thing? - Voidstate

I would support the idea. If anyone intends to write an entry who hasn't, I say they do it tonight and we move on tomorrow. We've gone on to multiples of the official turnaround time at this point, which in my most humble opinion is quite long enough.\\

~ Shataina

Shataina -- should I change the links on that entry then, or leave it as it is? -- Senji

Just getting rid of one phantom should do the trick. Whatever keeps the balance :)\\

~ Shataina

I have a proposition. Several people have pointed out that we are actually creating more phantoms than we will eventually be able to fill. To prevent this, a few people have starting citing already existant phantoms in their entries to cut down on the number that are created.\\ However, I think that citing existing phantoms will just cause problems for whoever has to write those phantoms, especially towards the end of the game where a single phantom could have been cited lots of times. \\ So... As an alternative, I'd like to suggest a "clean-up" round. When we get to Z, the game enters a free form state. Turns still take place every 2-3 days but during that time players can dib any free phantom and write it, provided they only write one per round. This continues until there are no more phantoms, at which time the game is over. Of course, during clean-up authors would have to use existing articles as their links.\\ What do people think?\\ - Voidstate

Hmm. I'm neutral either way, personally. However, the Lexicon as originally formulated is meant to be a game of resource management, as I've heard several times, and if we use your suggestion, the game will inevitably end up being much less about resource management. Since I don't really care about the resource management aspect, I wouldn't mind, but I think that aspect is important to some players.\\

~ Shataina

To consider Shataina's alternative suggestion from the Article Forum for a moment, I'd like to point out that if we cut back to a single 'original' phantom per entry, we might end up with too few phantoms for certain letters unless we take steps to avoid that result. In the short term, this might cause problems w/ P & Q.\\

~ AlecAustin

True, but if we do end up doing that, the undesirable result should be avoidable as long as we're careful, I think. It's not super-difficult to name phantoms appropriately, if necessary.\\

~ Shataina

Okay. I wroteLexicon/DiscussionArchive/KuzariNefhindi on February 25 -- two weeks ago. That was the starting day of the K round. I humbly submit that Quendalon ought to consider Voidstate's above suggestion, e.g., that we continue before this game lapses into a dusty, forgotten, sad little unfinished project, much like my term paper for Russian History. And nobody wants the Lexicon to bear any resemblance to my sad little forgotten term paper, do they? Well, then.\\ ~ Shataina

I've been trying to minimize my involvement in the Lexicon since my tantrum last month. I've already driven away at least one player, I'd rather not do more. It was my hope that Willows would take up the reins again, given that this is basically his project. - Quendalon

Aww ... you shouldn't feel so bad about it. Everyone has bad days :P and it's a shame you're minimizing just because of one.\\

Whatever you think is right for you, though, etc, etc, empowering statements here.  ;)\\ In the meantime, I am indeed curious about willows's take on the matter. He also never said whether he's playing this round ...\\ ~ Shataina

Thanks for the kind words. And no, we haven't heard from Willows on the subject. Which is a shame by my lights, as I'd really been hoping that he'd do my Kingswar entry. - Quendalon

Two weeks, eh? Ok - I think it's time for unilateral action. So unless there are storms of protest, I'm going to write an L tomorrow. - Voidstate

Now that there's only one entry left, we might as well wait to write our Ls until willows writes the Kingswar. Then we can move on with clear consciences. And hopefully L won't take 16 days :)\\

~ Shataina

Gee. I guess I'll write that Kingswar entry. I don't know a lot about Dragon Kings, so I'm going to have to make some crap up. - willows

Thanks Willows! - Quendalon

Just a note, and I'm not sure if this is the right place for it, but I'm going to be out of the country and probably lacking 'net access for the next few weeks, so don't slow up the game on my behalf. -AlecAustin

Cheers for letting us know. Have a good time abroad. Going anywhere nice? - Voidstate

New Zealand, w/ family. -AlecAustin

I'll also be going for a week or so. - willows

Are you going to fill out the Kingswar before you go?\\

~ Shataina

Okay. With people going and stuff ... hmm. I think the best way to deal with this would be to just move on every two days, regardless of whether everyone's filled out a phantom. (After all, there's no longer any rules against not filling out phantoms that've passed.) I suggest that we base the number of the following phantoms that we need on how many people play the preceding letter (i.e., if only 10 people fill out 15 M phantoms within the 2 days, and there are 9 N phantoms, then only strain to add 1 N phantom, not 6). Then if anyone missed out, they can ask for a backphantom. If we have extras left over, we can deal with it once the game's ending or ended. Thoughts?\\ ~ Shataina

I'd rather move along after everyone active has put up their phantom. We can just ask people to say if they're working, sitting out, gone, or whatever. If they're active and going to put a phantom up in a reasonable time frame, then we should wait. - Telgar

Yes, but what's a reasonable time frame? We're onto 18 days now, I believe, which in my most humble opinion is not reasonable. I'm not unwilling to lengthen the turnaround period, but waiting for people who take 2 weeks to put up a letter is kind of annoying and, as previously noted, makes the game lose momentum. (This isn't meant to be an insult, just an observation.)\\

The intent isn't to force people to play, especially since they can still fill out their phantom once the round has passed, but to let the rest of us continue the game before we lose interest or patience. I wouldn't be surprised if we've already lost several players merely by factor of the huge delay that's occurred here.\\ We have rules to let people play late now, and to make up past links, so it's not like it's totally crippling for someone to miss a round if they choose to or accidentally do so. I mean, yeah, I know, "it's just a game, so what's the harm in delaying," but by the same token, "it's just a game, so what's the harm in continuing on schedule and letting someone catch up?"\\ I guess my point is that moving on earlier doesn't force someone to miss a letter, but waiting long past the turnaround until they've filled it in does force the rest of us to wait; therefore, the option which forces fewer people into an unpleasant state is the one which allows us to move on on time.\\ ~ Shataina

Just to make it clear, completing my K is at approximately backlink status to me. I may not necessarily do it before I go travelling. But I don't think spring break trips are any kind of reason to slow down the Lexicon even further. - willows

Bad Lexicon-Nazi! No phantoms for you! - Telgar

Ah. Okay. In that case, I say we move on and, in my opinion, this means that people can start dibbing and writing Ls whenever they want.\\

~ Shataina

Hmm. I think I'm going to attempt to put this to a vote, as that seems to be the most efficient way of doing this (although it seems that most players don't read this page, but I could be wrong; anyway, we'll see if it works).\\ Put your name after the option you support:

The Vote

A) Move on every two days, whether or not everyone's filled out a phantom. -- willows, Quendalon\\ B) Lengthen the turnaround period, but still move on every X days, whether or not everyone's filled out a phantom. -- Shataina, Dissolvegirl (But once everyone gets back from vacation, my vote goes to A), Telgar, Dim, Voidstate, AlecAustin (Ditto Dissolvegirl)\\ C) Wait until everyone has filled out a phantom for a letter, regardless of how long this takes, before moving on. -- \\ D) I don't care at all. -- CrownedSun, Senji, Alabrax

PS: If you make a new major edit to this page, please add "plus, all active players should vote about the current turnaround period!" at the end of your major edit message, so no one misses it.\\ ~ Shataina

So B wins. Now we decide how long X is. Another vote perhaps (don't you just love democracy)? :¬) - Voidstate

If you want democracy, the next step is to send it to committee (now that you've polled the focus group).\\ _Ikselam

Heh. We have so few people, though. I guess we could make it a committee of everyone who cares, and therefore CrownedSun, Senji and Alabrax wouldn't have to do anything ...\\ Anyway, we have a few things to do now, problematically. Firstly, we should of course decide what our current turnaround period is, but we also should figure out how long it is till "everyone gets back from vacation", because when they do the votes will be a tie between options A and B. Then I guess we should figure out how to deal with the tie. (I've been vacillating, so I guess I could go to 2 days and kill the tie ... <grin> but that would feel mean and dishonest for some reason.)\\ For the lengthening of turnaround period ... I favour just having a commenty forum of goodness right here. And anyone who doesn't comment within like, a couple days, well, their opinion doesn't count or something. Heh. So it's a bit like a default committee composed of people who comment on this page by Sunday or so. Then we see what the consensus seems to be. <shrug> I don't really care so much what the turnaround period is myself, as long as we have one and it's less than a week.\\ ~ Shataina

I'd vote for 4 days. And say that putting up notes is an acceptable entry to allow us to move forward. - Telgar

Yeah, four days is good for now, and I do think notes should "count," but I'm reluctant to post notes because, well, mine suck in comparison to the article itself. *LOL* --dissolvegirl

Yay me not having to do anything!  :) For what it's worth, I think I'm only kinda sorta playing at this point. If there's an open entry and I feel inspired to write something, I'll do so. That's what I've been doing so far; just don't really see anything inspiring in L. I mostly dibbed LastLeaf, City Of because I felt compelled to do so. -- CrownedSun (same with me, actually. --dg)

Hmm.\\ Warning: none of the following is meant as a personal jibe, or an insult to anyone at all.\\ It seems that there's a general lack of commitment / interest here. Which is fine. But I don't think it'll be particularly useful for us to force the Lexicon to move on if people aren't going to be writing entries. I mean, I'm perfectly willing to write an entry per letter (eventually ...), and Voidstate has already written his L, but there does seem to be a general loss of interest, which we just can't force back into being.\\ My point here is that we really do need a certain number of players who are committed to writing actual entries within the time period, whatever that turns out to be. This isn't meant as a criticism of players who aren't, I'm just saying that for the game to function, we have to have this. I personally don't think that notes are really an effective substitute for an entry, unless they're really detailed notes I guess. So, if we don't have ... oh, I'd say at least four players who can write entries once per turnaround period ... I think we should put the game on hiatus or something until we do.\\ Like I said. Not meaning to be harsh or anything here. But although people are welcome to visit the game, etc, we need a core group to make it work the way it should.\\ ~ Shataina

I agree on having a hiatus. I really enjoy the Lexicon, I've just been in kind of a slump lately. Seems like almost everyone has-- maybe it's a halfway-through thing? At any rate, some time might invigorate us and get us back on track. Who knows. I for one apologize for my recent neglect of the game. --Dissolvegirl

I believe it may also be spring break / OMGImSoBehindGottaCatchUpOnSchoolWorkOrIWontGraduate time for a lot of folks. That could be a contributing factor.\\ _Ikselam

Well, I'm still up for playing. I'm sure if I leave it too long I'll lose interest which would be a real shame as I've really enjoyed playing this game. You still seem interested, Shataina. Are there a couple of others? We were going great with only 4 players for a bit and I have no problems with doing that again. In fact it was a bit more intimate and the "crochety scholars" angle came into play a bit more which was fun. Anyway, if a few people would like to keep playing, I'll join you. Anyone? - Voidstate

I like playing. I'm just a bit swamped at the moment. - Telgar

For the future, I think that if the Lexicon thing were to be tried again in the future, things would work much more smoothly if we had many small Lexicons instead of continually agglomerating new players into the same one. It's a standard group dynamic; the more people you have, the slower things go. - Quendalon

I will indeed keep playing if we have the players. I kinda figured we didn't, but hey, maybe.\\ Re: many small Lexicons -- I'm not sure if this is what you're already saying, but I think that would work out if people split up into groups, did several small Lexicons on the same topic, and then once each separate game was done it could be added into a big conglomerate Lexicon on that topic. Personally I like continually agglomerating new players, but I could just be biased since I myself joined late :) Still, at least 3 of the players who started this particular game stopped after 1 or 2 letters, so I'm not sure limiting players would work particularly well either. I actually tend to think that the approach we're working with is best -- we just need a core group to keep the game going.\\ Oh, also, Quendalon -- you've removed all the "original citation in:" links from my entries. I asked about this earlier in the game (that is, I asked whether it was against the rules or anything) and no one answered. If it isn't against the rules and won't hurt the game, would it be okay if people could not edit them out? (Others besides Quendalon have done so.) I mean ... I don't think the original citation links hurt anything, personally, and I kind of prefer having the "original citation" links there for my own reference and enjoyment, so if they aren't a huge problem, I would definitely appreciate it if people could stop getting rid of them. :)\\ ~ Shataina

To my mind, the "original citation in:" links are pretty much equivalent to having your character talk about how many Health Levels she has left and how many XP she needs to buy her next Charm. They're indicators of game-ness in something that's supposed to simulate a 'real' encyclopedia. - Quendalon

Okay, I guess I can see your point. Do you mind if I cite them in the same spot but don't explicitly state the "original citation" bit, then?\\

~ Shataina

I don't see any value added in it, honestly; the little searchbox does just as much work, as long as citers are responsible enough to state the full name of their citation somewhere. - willows

I agree. In fact i think perhaps it encourages players not to search and find all the other links. *shrug* Not that it bothers me particularly though. Anyway, I'm glad you're still in, Shaitana.// Anyone know when OMGImSoBehindGottaCatchUpOnSchoolWorkOrIWontGraduate is likely to finish? If it's soon I don't mind waiting but otherwise I think we should set a date (Next week? The week after?) and after that start moving on through the letters even if there's only a few people active. - Voidstate

I should be done with quarter exams and internal assessments by next week. I hope I'll be done, at least. I've got two papers due soon and one I need to get some work done on. Argh.. - Telgar

How about a week on Monday then. That's the 5th of April. After that we move on with whoever can spare the time and energy. Others are still free to play at their own pace but the core group won't have to wait for them. - Voidstate

My thesis is due with no further revision 9 days after April 5. If we restart on April 5, we'll also be passing exactly over my break, when I'll have the most time.\\ In other words, I'll do my best to stick to the Lexicon, honestly, but it might be tough going. Just letting you all know.\\ ~ Shataina\\ PS: Re: original citation links -- I prefer having the link there because I like knowing where the citation originally came from, a function that the wiki-search won't fill. I guess I can ditch them if necessary, though. I kind of preferred the visual balance on the page from them, too, but that's just my crazed obsessive artist side coming out. I'll pacify it with some Van Gogh prints. :)

That's a shame. Well, why not just do another entry now and I'll do one too. I've got a hankering to write more anyway. *shrug* Whatever. - Voidstate

Ok, I'm a newbie here and thinking of joining in, given that this looks fun. What I'm unclaer about however is exactly where I start, or what I'm free to jump in on. If I choose to do an entry for A for example, do I have to create phantoms for the letter B? Or for the current letter (L)? Or do I create them for whatever letter I feel like? If instead I choose to start on the letter L, am I free to just take any old outstanding phantom on L? And if I do, do I create new phantoms from it for M? For anything from M to Z? Or for any letter I feel like, including already done letters? - NightRain

The established rules for new people are that you start writing with the current letter, L. Then you can request Backlinks to previous letters on the Backlinks page. Phantoms can be for any letter that has not yet been done. If you want to fill in backlink requests from other people, you can link to older letters that have been requested. You can't create your own backlinks or later fill in your own phantoms.

Oh, and at the moment we're on a sort of Lexicon vacation due to most people being massivly overworked. So you may want to hold off till sometime next week or later this week. - Telgar

Is there any reason I can't just jump in, dib a phantom on L and start writing? - NightRain

No reason at all. Go for it! And welcome to the game :¬) - Voidstate

Thanks for the welcome :) Lastleaf has been done. Could I ask someone to have a look over it and let me know if I screwed anything up? - NightRain

I've just had a thought. Given that this is based on the time period up until the Terrestrial Shogunate, is it a problem that my entry is written from a journal point of view during that time? Reading the game description, it appears as if our characters are meant to be from a later time, collating details from the earlier time. My concept however was from someone IN that time detailing the entries in his journal. Is that a problem or do I need to do some readjusting? - NightRain

Nope, nothing wrong with that. I think there are a few existing entries of the same nature, from players who dropped out early in the game. - Quendalon

Two things: where are we on "original citation" links? I spotted one in NightRain's entry which no one seems to have edited out or complained about, so is it okay now or do people still want me not to have them in mine?\\ Also, NightRain, you get to write your own original A entry -- you don't need a backphantom for it if you don't want.\\ Voidstate -- I admit to some temptation to move on early, but my break is turning out busier than I expected (I lead a secret life of wanton debauchery) so I won't move on without prompting, personally. But, if you want to, I have no objections to it myself and I might indeed join you when (if?) the debauchery winds down.\\ ~ Shataina

Hi all - I am planning to move on to M this week. Anyone care to join me? - Voidstate

Sounds good. Can we have a roll call of active players? - Quendalon

I'll move along as well. I am active. - Telgar

Mostly active -- Senji

I'm activish, even if I haven't fully edited my last entry :) But I can take a break from writing my thesis and writing my term papers by writing a Lexicon entry! Yay!\\ ~ Shataina

Still active here. Planning on doing my A entry soon, and also ready to move on to M - NightRain

I've been reading the Lexicon, and very much considering getting involved. But I have a couple questions. First, are the rules on the main page up-to-date? I see there's been a lot of discussion on this page and in the archives of this page about the rules, and I want to make sure I'll be doing it right when I get involved. My other question is about the fictional scholars we post as. What time period are the fictional scholars supposed to be from? Are they living in the time period of many of the things they cover, or do they come after it, but still far in the past of the present time, or do they hail from the present time, but are discussing things of the far past? -Dimitryi

By the letter of the rules, the scholars are meant to be from the present game time, discussing events inclusive of and prior to the Shogunate era. That being said, I've asked the same question, and had it ok'ed to present the entries as journal entries from a given time in history.

That being said, having started doing it the latter way, I'm not overly happy with it. My initial character concept was for a wandering merchant king with a scholarly bent from the Shogunate era, and presenting my entries as a series of his journal entries. I'm not happy with that though and am thinking of changing it to allow for a modern day scavenger lord unearthing journals, and making his own entries with his modern take on things - NightRain

Thanks for the help! One last question. Where is the best place to find information on the various eras? I think I have a decent grasp on it from the game material and from the Lexicon here, but I'm hoping I don't get anything out of order. -Dimitryi

TO be honest there isn't really anything written about the time before the usurpation except in very broad strokes so you should be fine just making things up. Plus, as long as none of the other "scholars" have written about a subject you are free to invent facts, eras, places, anything really. That's part of the fun. Everything in the Lexicon is wildly extrapolated from what little we know. So don't worry about getting things "wrong" except in disagreeing with already written entries, and even then it's not really a problem. You can always edit your entry at any time. - Voidstate

And even if you do manage to mess up, someone will inevitably catch it.  ;)\\

~ Shataina

Dimitryi, your Mother Itenerant entry is set in the wrong time period. I think its fine to have it as a historical entry dating from current time lookinjg back in the past, but you make reference to the MI being post-first age, which none of the Lexicon is - Telgar

I'm confused then, because I based the time period of the MI on the Lexicon entry that originally referenced it, the Blade of the Mountains entry. It says that Blade of the Mountains lived during the Great Contagion, so I set the time period of the MI in the same area. - Dimitryi

Ahh, I understand. I wrot Blade of the Mountains and ment for it to be set at the end of the First Age, marked by the Contagion. I read yours as post-First Age. Difference in interpritation. - Telgar

I have no real problem editing it, as it works in just about any time period, as long as the time period matches Blade of the Mountains' time period, since she has to give him Ashen Vengeance.  :) - Dimitryi

So, who's up for moving on to N? It's been 8 days since we started on the Ms. - Voidstate

I'm ready when we do, not sure what the status is of the Ms that have been claimed, but not done yet. - Dimitryi

They become Backlinks. I'm ready to move on as well, but lets get at least one or two more agreements? - Telgar

I'm up for it. Wow, none of the N phantoms are mine. Sweet freedom!\\ Also: canonically, when did the Deathlords start messing with Creation? Like, so's you'd notice? Do we have a canon ref for the first Deathlord ever to do anything direct in Creation? In other words, can I make up an entry that involves a Deathlord or is our time period too early?\\ ~ Shataina

I think Deathlord involvement in obvious ways is very recent, definantly Post-Contagion, probably no more then 100 years old. So, unless its a VERY estoic and arcane reference, it's outta place. - Telgar

What are the rules in respect to writing an entry and referring to a currently-unwritten phantom reference? Should I avoid saying anything in an entry about an entry that has yet to be written? - Dimitryi

We include multiple references to phantoms all the time. Just don't give too much information, lest you leave nothing for the creativity of whoever fills that phantom out, and don't contradict anything that's already been posted about that phantom. Use the search box at the bottom of the page to check for existing references to the phantom in question. - Quendalon

Okay. At this point, we have entirely too many phantoms, especially in S. Being as this is the case, and very few people appear to be trying to limit their new-phantom creation, maybe we should start considering ways to fix this when the game approaches completion? I personally, for example, like Voidstate's suggestion from way back, that we have a "clean-up round" once the game is over.\\ ~ Shataina

I suggest we change the posted rules and notify everyone: one phantom per entry from now on and we encourage linking to existing phantoms. We have excesses in more then just S. And some people may be able to re-word their S-phantoms to unpopulated letters like Q, W and V. - Telgar

Both sound like good ideas. I personally like the idea of a clean-up round, myself. - Dimitryi

I like the Clean-up round idea, too. What a good idea. WHoever came up with that must have been one smart guy! :) Seriously though - the best thing about having a clean up round is that it needs less organisation as everyone can just keeping on doing what they have been since the beginning. - Voidstate

After reading the "PrettyWikiProject," I thought I should get involved in something beyond designing my own artifacts and charms and so on and putting up things from my games...but I'm not sure how to sign up... How do I know if an entry is claimed or not? Or is this the clean up round? I'm just a little confused. -Dorchadas

Firstly, welcome to the Lexicon. As to joining in, you have two places you can start: either fill one of the phantoms for the current letter ('N') (weaving in one link to a previous entry and two links to new entries, both for future letters) OR make a new entry up for A. If you do an 'A' entry you just need to add two 'phantoms' (links to future, unwritten entries you make up) and no link to a previous, already written entry.

Then you can go through letters which have unwritten phantoms filling them in. If you come across a letter without any phantoms you can request one on theLexicon/DiscussionArchive/BackLinks page. Backlinks are just like pahntoms but are for letters before the current one and are used to allow players joining late to catch up.

The only letters you shouldn't write entries for are ones on future letters (anything past 'N'). Is that clear or have I just made things more confusing? Feel free to ask questions if you need rules clarifying further.

- Voidstate

Lots of people aren't writing their backlinks. Maybe we should put a time limit on them or something so that if someone leaves their backlinks alone for like a month and someone else wants them, the new person can take it.\\ ~ Shataina

So...for example, I choose the Nine Scholars' Mantra. I go and write it, making sure to check the original reference, and I add two phantom links (anywhere, or just for letters after N?) and one already cited one...say, the Indistinct Epic. Like that?

And thank you for the welcome ^_^ -Dorchadas

Exactly. The phantom-entries must be for letters after N unless someone has requested a backlink (a pre-current phantom) and then you may fill their request. Can't, however, write your OWN backlinks. Welcome to the Lexicon. Please don't write S phantoms. We have too many. - Telgar

It's worth noting that you shouldn't cite the Indistinct Epic as an already cited phantom because it hasn't been written yet. You can cite it as a phantom, but don't cite it as the already-written.\\

~ Shataina

Shall we move on again on Monday? We will have been on the current letter for 2 weeks then. - Voidstate

Works for me. Also, should we ask people to change the letters of some of their S-phantoms? No way we have enough Lexicon-people. - Telgar

I could change the Shawl of Sable Thorns to something of another letter. - Dimitryi

Go ahead and change the Shawl if it pleases you :) but the overload in S is irrelevant if we're going to have a clean-up round. To determine whether this will happen, I propose a vote on cleanup rounds. Mm, votes.\\

~ Shataina

Shall we move on to the letter O? If we do and anyone wants my Opal phantom, it can be either Opal of Doom or the current title. - Telgar

I favour moving on, as always.\\

~ Shataina

Moving on is fine with me. I can get my N entry later - I'm just waiting for Dissolvegirl to finish her related M entry so I have something to work from. :) - Quendalon

Didn't she officially quit the Lexicon? I seem to recall seeing a note over onLexicon/DiscussionArchive/BackLinks about that.\\

~ Shataina

She did say she'd be gone, because of real life stuff. Which is too bad, because her stuff is great. As for moving onto O, I'm ready when you folks are! - Dimitryi

I think four votes for O is enough. Let's move along. - Telgar, heading off to dib.

The Second Votity Vote Vote -- dealing with the phantom overload:\\ Put your name after the option you support:

The Votity Vote

A) Cleanup round as proposed by Voidstate. -- \\ B) Try to limit the problem by changing the rules for fewer phantoms per entry. -- \\ C) Both. -- Shataina, Dimitryi, Telgar\\ D) I don't care at all. -- \\ E) Secret option E: insert your own suggestion. (Cleanup AND allow phantoms for any letter not just the future - doesn't matter if we're having a cleanup) Voidstate--

PS: If you make a new major edit to this page, please add "plus, all active players should vote about phantomy madness!" at the end of your major edit message, so no one misses it.\\ ~ Shataina

Do we have an exact definition of "behemoth"? They're just prototypes left over, right? And there are behemoths which appear nonviolent, right? I seem to recall spotting on in "Creatures of the Wyld". Just trying to make sure I don't contradict canon in my next entry.\\ ~ Shataina

This is correct. - Telgar

Is the lexicon dead? - Voidstate

Comatose, at best. I know that there are a few entries that I would like to do...but precious little motivation to do them, in the face of the other stuff I'd like to be doing at the Wiki. I think it's produced a wealth of good stuff, though; no need to grieve. - willows

I'm going to do my D backlink and my O in a while. I think summer's starting and people are busy right now. I know I sure am with all these damn IB and AP exams.. - Telgar

I think a lot of people are dropping out, but it's not dead. I'm going to write my entry, I swear. I'm really sorry I left it so long, I'm about to get my BA this weekend, I also have finals, etc, and it's all kind of crazy. I'll see if I can grab a spare half hour for it tonight.\\

~ Shataina

I've been extremely busy in real life the past few days, but I still plan to get my O entry done. Just bear with me.  ;) - Dimitryi

Cool. I was worried there for a bit. Looks like there's enough of us still interested to keep this thing going. - Voidstate

So now that the Wiki's back up, who's still around?
~ Shataina

I am. My O just hasn't inspired me yet. - Telgar

Wow! I just noticed that phantom links now look like normal links. That's really annoying. Is there anything we can do about that? And if there isn't, do we think we should just label phantoms as phantoms or leave it, deeming the effort not worth the alleviation of any confusion?
~ Shataina