Thanks, but...

Subject: Thanks, but...
Author: Neshomeh
Posted on: 2011-06-23 19:31:00 UTC

No matter what I do to the article, there is nothing within my power that can help people who aren't going to read the whole thing anyway. Especially the first line, which in any article is meant to define its subject and is in fact rather important if you're looking something up with the intent of learning what it is. Anyway, too much redundancy (which does exists already, as July has pointed out) will result in TL;DR, which will definitely result in people not reading the whole thing.

See also PPC Story, which I've linked to from the article (albeit just from that first introductory line and the "What can I use as my writing sample?" section—guess I could add more links?).

~Neshomeh

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Permission article re-write. by Neshomeh on 2011-06-18 18:32:00 UTC Reply

In light of the discussion below, I'm trying to take some of the mystery and pomp and circumstance out of—

*trumpets play*

—Stop that!

*trumpets cease*

That's better. Anyway, it seemed like a good idea to de-fancify the Permission article on the wiki to hopefully make permission easier to understand and less intimidating and big-deal-ish. So, here's what I've got now on the Sandbox page:

http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/Sandbox

Let me know what you think. (Yeah, you. You in the back. That's right. I know you're there.) This isn't set in stone or anything, and after the survey we're talking about it may all change anyway, I dunno.

~Neshomeh

SO, before this falls off the page... by Neshomeh on 2011-06-24 21:22:00 UTC Reply

I think it's about as good as it'll get right now. What do you say, switch it in?

~Neshomeh

Looks good to me. by Vixenmage on 2011-06-25 00:07:00 UTC Reply

(Yes, I noticed that last bit. Does that mean I'm off the hook as concerns getting around to writing one? Can't be messing up the truth of the article, now... :P)

*makes plans* by JulyFlame on 2011-06-25 06:35:00 UTC Reply

*appends to the end ...'who is currently working on making her own spin-off'.*

>D

[Citation Needed] (nm) by Vixenmage on 2011-06-25 06:48:00 UTC Reply

I have logs. by JulyFlame on 2011-06-25 06:50:00 UTC Reply

And I will search through them, if need be.

...I'll just be over here, out of the way. by Vixenmage on 2011-06-25 06:58:00 UTC Reply

Glaring at you.

It's okay. I know your heart yearns for me. Secretly. (nm) by JulyFlame on 2011-06-25 09:26:00 UTC Reply

I will throw things at you. Heavy, sharp things. (nm) by Vixenmage on 2011-06-26 00:29:00 UTC Reply

I know they're gifts of love. by JulyFlame on 2011-06-26 00:55:00 UTC Reply

The last bit. by Neshomeh on 2011-06-25 04:29:00 UTC Reply

You can slip on or off the hook as you please. See, the great thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it, any time, as circumstances require. {; P

~Neshomeh

Yes. (nm) by JulyFlame on 2011-06-24 23:12:00 UTC Reply

Thing: by Lleu on 2011-06-22 04:17:00 UTC Reply

The Sandbox article currently doesn't say anything about non-mission PPC writing (interludes, e.g., which are mentioned in the current Permission article) and permission; clarification that while you don't need permission to, say, use your Agents in other things, you do need permission to write things set in the PPC canon would be good to have, I think, especially if it were more clearly-articulated than the current Permission article.

Otherwise, I think it looks pretty good.

Lleu

Yes it does. by JulyFlame on 2011-06-22 05:55:00 UTC Reply

'To write PPC stories, including missions, interludes, and anything else set in the shared universe of the Protectors of the Plot Continuum, you need to get permission from a Permission Giver on the PPC Posting Board.'

She's had that right at the very beginning of the article since she started rewriting it.

My bad by Lleu on 2011-06-22 21:16:00 UTC Reply

I see that you're correct. However, I don't think I'm going to be the only one who skips over the introductory section. If it's short, I do it pretty much by default: usually my feeling is that if it's only a few sentences, it's not telling me anything I don't already know. Basically, redundancy never hurts, especially, I would think, in this case. Perhaps a question in the FAQ to hammer the point home — I know that when I was looking for that information in the article, the FAQ was the first place I looked.

Anyway, as I said, other than that it looks fine to me.

Thanks, but... by Neshomeh on 2011-06-23 19:31:00 UTC Reply

No matter what I do to the article, there is nothing within my power that can help people who aren't going to read the whole thing anyway. Especially the first line, which in any article is meant to define its subject and is in fact rather important if you're looking something up with the intent of learning what it is. Anyway, too much redundancy (which does exists already, as July has pointed out) will result in TL;DR, which will definitely result in people not reading the whole thing.

See also PPC Story, which I've linked to from the article (albeit just from that first introductory line and the "What can I use as my writing sample?" section—guess I could add more links?).

~Neshomeh
Here is your further redundancy (that is already there). by JulyFlame on 2011-06-22 23:56:00 UTC Reply

'When you are writing about your agents and HQ, you are borrowing the world that was created by Jay and Acacia. They specifically requested that spin-off authors use their gadgets and follow their naming system for new stuff. This has since been interpreted to mean generally keeping to the spirit of the Original Series. Permission ensures that people who want to write a spin-off actually want to write a PPC spin-off and not make up something completely different. (Making up something completely different is cool, but calling it "PPC" is not.)'

'We take pride in the fact that our stories are well-written. If someone asks for permission to PPC, and that person's post is riddled with bad spelling, grammar, and logic, permission will not be granted. What right do we have to mock people's stories if our own writings are just as bad? Additionally, it would be super-hypocritical if the PPC ended up full of Sue and Stu agents who are not reformed.'

Q. What can I use for my writing sample?
A. Basically anything except a PPC story or a co-written work, as long as it reflects your ability to use spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Humor is encouraged but not necessary. Fanfiction, original fiction, and agent backstories/introductions have all been used and are all fine.

Hm by Lleu on 2011-06-23 19:42:00 UTC Reply

I would say that all three of those are not the same as what I'm talking about it, but it's not really that big of a deal; it's covered from multiple angle's, and I take Neshomeh's point about not having too much redundancy.

correction by Elemarth on 2011-06-21 11:03:00 UTC Reply

"A link to the Suefic you intend to tackle..." You mean badfic, not Suefic.

Oh, good catch! by Neshomeh on 2011-06-21 15:37:00 UTC Reply

Wow, I can't believe that got past me for this long. Good job!

*runs off to fix*

~Neshomeh

Update by Neshomeh on 2011-06-19 20:12:00 UTC Reply

The proposed changes have been revised according to the suggestions made so far, plus an additional question I thought to add to the FAQ section ("Can I claim a badfic before I get Permission?"). Please don't hesitate to make more; they've all been very helpful so far. {= D

~Neshomeh
Looks great - I'm all for it. by Sedri on 2011-06-19 01:24:00 UTC Reply

I have a few little comments, but nothing major:

* I'd get rid of the brackets here:
We take pride in the fact that our stories are well-written. (What right do we have to mock people's stories if our own writings are just as bad?)
- And I'd not put the "Additionally, it would be super-hypocritical..." bullet point a level in from the last; best to put it in the last paragraph, or soft-return it so it doesn't have a new point. Or, give it a new point that's level with the other two.

* I love the "and for Eru's sake, cheer up!" bit :)

* In the answer to "Q. When should I ask for permission?", I think you should make it a little more clear that the standard is one month minimum, or else a lot of people will see that "as quickly as two weeks" bit and consider that the minimum. Best not to send mixed messages, you know?

And... I think that's it. Cheers!

Seconding July. by Neshomeh on 2011-06-19 19:30:00 UTC Reply

Part of the purpose of the re-write is to de-emphasize "one month" and place more emphasis on interaction/participation. Like July said, the time period doesn't matter if we don't get to know folks in the meantime anyway. I'll consider how else I can make the point, though.

I was directly quoting Araeph's post for most of the first section, but if it would be clearer another way I'm all for that. The last line was a different point because it wasn't part of the quoted material, but again, the point is clarity. {= )

Thanks for the comments!

~Neshomeh

Ah, I see. No worries. (nm) by Sedri on 2011-06-20 09:58:00 UTC Reply

Disagree on the last point. by JulyFlame on 2011-06-19 01:33:00 UTC Reply

Many people have tried to interpret it as introduce yourself, wait exactly a month while doing nothing, and the request permission; upon discovering they did not get permission because no one knows who they are, they complain and say they waited the whole month.

The focus should be on being part of the community and feeling like you're part of the community and feeling prepared to ask for permission, not on an imaginary set deadline.

*facepalm* How did I miss that? (nm) by Miah on 2011-06-19 01:04:00 UTC Reply
I like it by EileenAlphabet on 2011-06-18 20:47:00 UTC Reply

It's looks cleaner and the more comprehensive index are a good thing.

Does Permission make me an offical PPCer? by DigitalSocrates on 2011-06-18 23:41:00 UTC Reply

A. Absolutely not. Just being around, reading the stories, and basically hanging out with us makes you a PPCer. Plenty of respected PPCers have never written a single mission. One of them is a Permission Giver herself!

^^^
The 'absolutely not' as an immediate answer sounds a little harsh and can be misinterpreted until you read the rest of the paragraph. As usually the rest of the paragraph is meant to expand on the first sentence of the paragraph rather than disprove it, I wonder if it would be better to omit that.

I see what you mean. Thanks! (nm) by Neshomeh on 2011-06-18 23:50:00 UTC Reply

No problem. (nm) by DigitalSocrates on 2011-06-19 04:41:00 UTC Reply

Seems good to me. (nm) by Sergio Turbo on 2011-06-18 20:04:00 UTC Reply
I like the new format by Miah on 2011-06-18 19:20:00 UTC Reply

It is is less intimidating, and more clear.

One thing you might want to add to the FAQs is "Do I need to request permission for each new agent I wish to write after I have permission?" Or something along those lines. I've seen it come up a few times.

I thought I did...? by Neshomeh on 2011-06-18 23:53:00 UTC Reply

Q. Do I need permission for every new story/agent/idea?

A. Nope. You only need to get official permission once. It is considered polite to ask for general Board approval when introducing new concepts or gadgets or whatnot, though, or anything else that would alter the universe for other people.

^ Could it be more clear, do you think?

~Neshomeh

Re: Permission article re-write. by Fish Custard on 2011-06-18 19:11:00 UTC Reply

I think it's a good idea. It makes things clearer than the current article, and that can only be good. I really like the Q&A section.

Would you mind if I made a couple of small grammatical fixes? (or I can just point them out here, if you like)

Suggest away. (nm) by Neshomeh on 2011-06-18 23:51:00 UTC Reply

Re: Suggest away. by Fish Custard on 2011-06-19 11:31:00 UTC Reply

Under 'Why do I need Permission?':

"What right do we have to mock people's stories if our own writings are just as bad?"

Shouldn't that be "...if our own writing is just as bad"?

And under 'What if I get rejected?':

"Usually it amounts to one to three things:"

I think it would be clearer to say something like "The three most common reasons for rejection are:", or "Usually it is down to one or more of the following:"

I know I'm being picky, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Responses by Neshomeh on 2011-06-19 19:36:00 UTC Reply

For the first one, I was quoting Araeph, but I'm considering retooling that section anyway (see Sedri's comments and my response). However, I don't think the way she has it is wrong, since we're creating multiple bodies of related work rather than one singular creation. Make sense?

You're right on the second point. I just couldn't think of anything better at the time. Thanks!

~Neshomeh

Re: Responses by Fish Custard on 2011-06-19 20:39:00 UTC Reply

Yeah, I see your point. I suppose it was the 'writings' bit that threw me, it just doesn't seem... right.

No problem, glad to be useful!