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.

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

owowowowowowowow

oh come on, it’ll be fun as!

my sentiments exactly…

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…”?

*references that describe the attribute

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.

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.

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”

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

s/k.

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