Ghyll:Round 2 discussion

This is a page for Ghyll players to discuss what changes, if any, should be made during Round 2, since the letter Z is not too far away. Before we get into those discussions, let's talk about what the End of Round 1 means, and what will happen during that interim period between its end and Round 2's beginning.

Between Rounds

A few people have noticed the natural tendency of a Lexicon to have its earliest entries "outdated" by the time you get into the mid- or end- game. For instance, we know a bit more about Ghyllian reproduction, a little more about this, and a lot more about that. Anyone reading those entries "new" will get a slop-sided view of its completeness. What to do, what to do?

An in-game solution proposed by Morbus seemed to also be plausible out of game. Basically, since Round 1 is a "formalized" attempt by the Encyclopedants to create an Encyclopedia, Round 1 could be considered a "First Edition Draft" of the Encyclopedia. Round 2, on the other hand, would be a "Second Edition Draft" and so on. Thus, the time between Round 1 and Round 2 would be used to edit, fix and enhance any and all previous entries.

But, how much time for this editing? Or should the editing be part of Round 2? Should every player now have the ability to a) write a new entry, and b) revise/edit a previous entry? This would satisfy a "Done My Entry, Now What?" player who wants to contribute to Ghyll more. And it wouldn't allow them to overly influence the world, since they'd still need to edit/revamp based on prior art.

Allow a two week period between Rounds

• Write up in-game "End of Year" reports.
• Finish up any discussions on this page.
• Take a break and collect your thoughts.
• Mad-edit anything that needs to.

Yay: Morbus
Nay:

Allow scholars to revamp previous turns entries

• One edit per turn, in addition to regular round rules.
• No new facts, just revamped to include missing/clarified facts.
• No dibbing on edits; if necc. mad-edits are collaborative.

Yay: Morbus
Nay:

Rule changes

My proposal is to require that no more than one of the cited phantoms can be a new phantom that has not yet been referenced. --Jcowan 15:50, 28 Jan 2005 (EST)

I like this idea. That will help us close the gap somewhat on the number of phantoms in circulation. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 19:31, 28 Jan 2005 (EST)

---

I heard mention of "speed turns" for upcoming turns. I propose these be the fabled Alphabet song's L-M-N-O-P in the second round. 1 day per letter. I estimate it will fall somewhere around the week of the 4th of July. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 19:31, 28 Jan 2005 (EST)

I like this idea. --Jcowan 13:29, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)

---

I'd like to find a way to make entries out of turn occasionally. I know there is Stottlemeyer O'Phelan and that such things do happen, but I wondered if there might be a way to "earn" an out of sequence letter by doing something in-game. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 19:31, 28 Jan 2005 (EST)

I don't like this one. Stott is a hack for dealing with certain kinds of problems, and if he gets overused, he becomes uninteresting. (I'd be happy if he was *really* never used again.) I think the letters and the turns are the main thing that keeps Ghyll from becoming a free-for-all where whoever writes first and most wins. --Jcowan 13:29, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)

The problem of the Ghyll Index

Currently, the Ghyll Index is a hybrid between an index and a record of what happens each turn (players added, dropped, dibbed but did not complete). The information will become hard to maintain in Round 2, because it won't be obvious which entries are from which round. Here are a couple of possibilities:

1. Stop collecting the turn summary information and move the existing material to an archival "Round 1 Turn Summaries" page. Morbus has expressed support for this, and I have been against it in the past, but I think it must now be reconsidered.
2. Keep separate indexes for each round, either on separate pages or on the same page. This allows the turn summary information to be maintained as it is today, but undermines its value as an index.

I propose we adopt the first idea. --Jcowan 13:29, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)

Would it be possible to somehow tag the 2nd turn entries as they are added to the Ghyll Index? Either a different color on the table or a type style differentiation? --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 11:56, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)

We could, yes; the page is hand-maintained, and any HTML whatever can be hacked into it. But it's annoying to do so, and whatever we choose will not scale (we will have problems with using distinct colors after about 10 rounds, e.g.) The only thing that will really work is to add the round number directly to the entry, which seems like overkill to me. --Jcowan 17:47, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)