Ghyll:Round 2 discussion

Round 2 begins May 14th. We are currently in mad-edit play, per the "Allow a two week period between rounds" section below. In short, everyone may edit or revise any entry, under the restriction that NO NEW FACTS WILL BE ADDED, merely clarifications and improvements. The Encyclopedants have started Encyclopedants Progress Report 26 for scholars (and players) to leave their final End of Round 1 thoughts.

Do you plan on playing regularly in Round 2?

Yes. --Morbus Iff 14:42, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Ditto. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 16:05, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Of course. --John Cowan 02:32, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Unfortunately, no. The divorce and job change have created too much chaos in my life. I'll finish this round, but I cannot say when I'll be able to return. --Doctor Phineas Crank 10:00, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Sorry to hear that, Doctor Crank. You'll be missed. --John Cowan

Sniff, sniff. --Morbus Iff 15:28, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

New player, I'll be here! --Trousle Undrhil 17:09, 16 Apr 2005 (CST)

Just like to make it known that from May 14 (start of Round 2) til May 20 (or so) I will more than likely be away from any internet access, so I will likely not have an entry for A for Round 2. Just thought it should be known. --Trousle Undrhil 01:07, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'm new but I definitely want to be in on the next round. --Jonathon Howard 18:09, 20 Apr 2005

I'm in for most of it, seeing as I'll be out of school then. Wish me luck on the job hunt though. --Theophenes 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'd like to play, though I'm not sure I can commit to every turn. But I'd like to express interest. New user. --Lisa B. Underhalh 18:10, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I would love to participate! --Finna Sunderhorn 20:57, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)

One would dearly love to write as much as possible in the upcoming round, yet the uncertainty concerning my future internet access prevents me from making any binding promises. I can, however, truthfully state that if circumstances allow I will most assuredly be a regular contributor. --Lankin the Mad Mage 10:07, 22 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Yes, new user. --Ahpsp 10:45, 22 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'll be happy to join. New user. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 01:32, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Yes, I am very interested in playing this round. Life gets progressively more full, and I can't promise to play every week. But I miss playing Bindlet Ball, and want to know who killed Supetupheraraphes --DrBacchus 11:15, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Yes, I'm new here. I have become very intrigued about this world, and I hope that I am able to produce interesting entries for round 2. In the meantime, I'll try to read as many entries as possible! --Mr. Stokes 14:59, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I would also like to join. It's quite a unique idea. But I have a suggestion. Would it be easier to get a free forum and link to that and have sections on all these things? I was kind of confused when I first came. --Ellidyr 19:26, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I fail to see how that would be easier. --Morbus Iff 08:14, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Surely, a wiki is the ultimate form of a free forum. Since the wiki is the forum, why bother making a forum for a forum? That would be equivalent to going to a grocery store and then using the in-store phone to order groceries to be delivered to your house, I think. --Trousle Undrhil 14:19, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'm game for Round 2, I've got a lil' over 14 days to read up! --Nikos of Ant 27 Apr 2005

I may be playing for an unknown amount of time during some point in the near or far future of this game. --Somebody 18:46, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)

This is incredibly cool. I'm going to join up in May, and try not to butcher the wiki too badly. --Snafu Bohica 13:03, 29 Apr 2005 (EDT)

This sounds incredible. I will join in May, and hope that my articles will be acceptable. --Cauship 10:47, 3 May 2005 (EDT)

Wow, I'd really like to contribute to this, or at least watch it develop. Hopefully I'll have read up on all the current articles by the time the next round starts. Is there a way to submit drafts of articles for proofreading/suggestions before they become official entries? --Rufian 02:56, 3 May 2005 (EDT)

Generally speaking, yes. Your article isn't "truly" submitted until the end of the turn. So, you could write a first draft on Monday, post it on the site, think about it on Tuesday, come back and edit it on Wednesday, finalize it Thursday, and then plead for a review. I also do a copyediting phase of the previous turn every Monday morning, and I'll usually catch errors then too and write about them in the "Discussion" page of the article itself. These errors are usually pretty small, so there's no problem with retroactively fixing them (or planning to explain them away in a future entry). --Morbus Iff 09:01, 3 May 2005 (EDT)

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. An in-game solution proposed by Morbus Iff 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.

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.

Allow scholars to revamp previous round's entries

• One edit per turn to ANY entry, 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.

Rule Changes

I've deleted the proposed rule changes that didn't win scholarly consensus or didn't survive the Mighty Stomp.

Of your two phantom citations, only one can be new

This is important to keep down the proliferation of phantoms;
at the end of Round 1, we have almost as many phantoms as articles.

Rule of A: Scholars may always write new, non-phantom, turn A entries

The goal is to ensure that every round has a "fresh start" with new branches of story. By not requiring a phantom to be defined for letter 'A' (regardless of leftover phantoms from previous rounds), we're always "starting" fresh with new, as opposed to already established, content. Of course, Truth from previous rounds must still be accepted as such, and existing 'A' phantoms may be dibbed if a player so decides.

So, in other words, if we are starting a new Round and there are 5 phantoms for A but I don't like any of those phantoms, I can create a new entry for A and start from there? Or would this apply to any turn in a round in which there are no phantoms in existance for that turn? No C phantoms on turn 3, for example. --Trousle Undrhil 01:10, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Yes, both. There is already a rule that, if there are no valid phantoms remaining for a letter, a scholar writes a brand new entry. This rule just gives turn A, and only turn A, more power than usual, solely because it is the start of a new Round. --Morbus Iff 08:50, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Round 2 Themes

The original Lexicon post suggests there should be a theme and goal to the entries being written. Since Ghyll, as a world, didn't exist, there was no theme to Round 1: it was ultimately "make a world". Scholarly consensus established that Round 2 will have no theme either, but the themes formerly proposed here have been transplanted to User:Morbus Iff/themes.