Friday, November 21, 2008

Proposal: David Hume’s nightmare.

vetoed—Yoda

Adminned at 22 Nov 2008 01:32:54 UTC

Add the sub-rule coherence to the rule 2.1 Plot.

Define an attribute of a character/object to be any aspect of said character/object having objective reality and that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation (e.g. physical attributes, nationality, religion, occupation, etc.). If a character, called the “author of statement X”, makes a plot seeding post in the main blog which contradicts an attribute which has previously been established, then the first other character to point out the contradiction, will henceforth be known as the “critic of statement X”. An objection to statement X requires a nomination and seconding to be passed, and these may be offered by any active character, with the exception of the author, the critic, and the narrator by placing a FOR symbol in the comments under the objection, followed by a statement of X. The AGAINST symbol has no attached meaning, though characters are free to express reasons they disagree with the objection. Even after an objection has been passed, the narrator may veto the objection by placing the VETO symbol, follwed by a statement of X.  Any objection that has passed in this manner must be altered by the author on the wiki page “plot summary”.

and let the games begin!

 

Comments

ovangle:

11-21-2008 01:59:00 UTC

I’m obviously a bit unsure about using the concept “objective reality” within a plot to a story which doesn’t actually exist, but I mean things which would usually possess objective reality if they existed in our frame of reference.

ovangle:

11-21-2008 02:00:37 UTC

*those things which would possess objective reality if the object/character existed in our reality.

Darknight:

11-21-2008 02:03:30 UTC

against owowowowowowowow

ovangle:

11-21-2008 02:12:16 UTC

oh come on, it’ll be fun as!

Yoda:

11-21-2008 02:15:30 UTC

against my sentiments exactly…

ovangle:

11-21-2008 02:24:50 UTC

would it be better if it read “which contradicts an attribute that has already been established together with references that attribute from the appropriate sections of the plot summary, will…”?

arthexis:

11-21-2008 02:25:04 UTC

against

ovangle:

11-21-2008 02:25:40 UTC

*references that describe the attribute

Darknight:

11-21-2008 02:27:49 UTC

Its too confusing to even try to fix by changing one line my friend. I can’t even read it fully without holding my head.

ovangle:

11-21-2008 02:30:01 UTC

Confusing? It just means if someone writes “Jason Smith lives at 3/21 Roseberry Ave” someone else can’t then add a plot seeding entry that says “Jason smith lives in a gutter”, and if they do, there is a mechanism in place so that people can point out the fault and correct it.

ovangle:

11-21-2008 02:34:37 UTC

All that stuff at the top is just ripped straight from the wikipedia entry on “fact”, and I consider it a reasonable definition of a “fact”

ovangle:

11-21-2008 02:40:28 UTC

The fact the narrator can veto anything means that if somebody posts a stupid and inflammatory objection, and is just being a cockhead, objections can just be swept under the rug so to speak

ovangle:

11-21-2008 03:01:37 UTC

And the fact that people have to mention a statement to nominate it or second it means that you can deal with multiple objections in the same criticism.

ovangle:

11-21-2008 03:02:27 UTC

And just one more post to confirm that I am a complete wanker.

Darknight:

11-21-2008 03:04:54 UTC

the fact that you want us to use the voting symbols outside of what they are here for will confuse most if not everyone

ovangle:

11-21-2008 03:11:40 UTC

Well, it can be easily altered and reposted to remove the references to voting symbols if that’s the objection. I just thought using the symbols would reduce confusion because they still represent the same concepts, it is just that one of the symbols is meaningless in context.

ovangle:

11-21-2008 03:13:34 UTC

And the quorum is two for an objection, rather than the standard quorum

ovangle:

11-21-2008 03:17:43 UTC

i can also insert a clause which states that one of either the nominator or second must be an admin of the blog.

There are plenty of ways to clean it up to avoid abuse, just suggest a couple.

It could be refined by using non-standard voting symbols, for example.

Yoda:

11-21-2008 03:37:29 UTC

It’s not just the voting thing.  It is also confusing and unnecessary.

ovangle:

11-21-2008 03:46:22 UTC

It’s unnecessary at the moment, because there are not many objects and characters involved, but as the story continues, the collective analysis of the entire active membership will do much more to ensure a coherent storyline than simply the author’s memory of the events and characteristics of objects preceeding his post in the plot summary.

Yoda:

11-21-2008 03:56:26 UTC

That’s why I can change it any time.  If someone sees something that needs to be changed, they can let me know and I can change it.

ovangle:

11-21-2008 04:04:45 UTC

It’s more fun if we let the plot holes be filled by semi-democratic means.

ovangle:

11-21-2008 04:08:26 UTC

s/k.

Bucky:

11-21-2008 04:20:43 UTC

against

Yoda:

11-22-2008 01:32:32 UTC

veto since apparently ovangle doesn’t actually want to s/k it