Defiantly? What?

Subject: Defiantly? What?
Author: Neshomeh
Posted on: 2010-03-26 20:25:00 UTC

I see no need to get defiant about it. That's not very polite. {; p

~Neshomeh, disguising her ignorance of complex mathematics with snark about typos.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Science and myself. by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 08:27:00 UTC Reply

I've been reading through the Original Series like a good little PoDE (Person of Developing Experience), and I come to realize that I had been making badfic my entire life.

Well, its not strictly badfic, because that's breaking of the cannon, but I have always looked at books and movies and figured out different ways to bring it to the same conclusion with different variables i.e. crossovers or the inclusion of new characters.

Quite a little shock, as I had always regarded it as harmless, and it makes me feel sorry for those authors who are unenlightened. I thank my lucky stars that my good friend Ralac instilled a strong respect for CANNON (as he referred to it) a couple years ago.

We have always been roleplayers, and his ability to conduct a fun RP that maintains the cannon is amazing.

AS a side note, I'll be informing him of the PPC.

So, a little something about myself and now a question.

Is their any trans-universe science that takes into account the persistence of a Sue? If there is, then I have not found it on the wiki.

I guess here is an example.

In order for an Agent to assassinate a Sue this equation must be true.

Eo*Io
Where Eo= the original authors effort, which can be found by this:
Length of Story multiplied by the number of new or original characters multiplied by the deviation from a standard badfic (a number that can not be less then 1 or greater then 1.9999999~inf, where 1 equals completely predictable and 2 represents a complete deviation from previous badfic{not possible because it is all based on the authors original work}).

Eo=L*N*D

And where Io= the intelligence of the original author, which can be found by this:
The amount of grammatical and spelling errata under one.

Io=1/G

------------------------------------

The same thing applies to the authors of the agent's exploits, except with these changes.

Ea = the length of the story multiplied by the number of new characters (relative to the badfic and the agents author, so by PPC standards would most often be 2) multiplied by the deviance of the agent's author's work from THEIR OWN PREVIOUS ENDEAVORS.

Ia = the same.

----------------------------------

So for an example.

Larry writes a badfic. His story is fairly lengthy(65), although he only introduces 3 new characters (thank god), but its pretty much like other badfic, so it only gets a deviance score of (1.1). He is not that bright however, and has a few errors on his behalf (lets say 17).

So, the equation goes as such.

65 (length) * 3 (characters) * 1.1 (deviation) = 214.5
That is his Eo.

Now his intelligence score is 1/17, so

214.5 * 1/17 = 12.61 (errors are devastating)

So, Thoman wants to write a rectification story.
Its not as long, only rated at 37 and he uses his standard 2 agents, but he is pretty original with this one and thus gets a 1.4 for deviance. He is smart and spellchecks, leaving only 3 erros in his project.

37 * 2 * 1.4 = 103.6, not as high as the other raw score, but this is where quality and intelligence come into play.

103.6 * 1/3 = 34.53~

Ahh, his final score is much higher then the badfic writers, and his agents are successful in their mission.

------------------------------------------------------

This is not random math however. All that really matters are the theories, the numbers themselves can change to whatever is necessary and don't even have to be "numbers" per say. What this does accomplish:

*Explains why the PPC doesn't go after small or weak badfic very often, as it is not much of a numerical threat.

*Maintains quality, the way the numbers stack, the badfic writer almost always has you outnumbered and the only way you can win is by originality and use of acceptable spelling and grammer.

*Gives me something to do. I like quantifying things, and even if this is unnecessary, I enjoyed the process. ^_^

So, tell me what you think. Is this too limiting? Does there need to be revisions? Is there even a place for this theory in the PPC? This post is pretty poorly formatted, so if you understand its contents, kudos to you. I also thank you for reading this far (unless you skipped).

Expand this post →

Not as impressively complicated as yours, but... by doctorlit on 2010-03-25 20:14:00 UTC Reply

I was inspired to create...the Characterization Variation Ratio (C):

C=(#OOC Canons + #OC's) ÷ #Major Canons

Or, in words: You add the number of out-of-character canons to the number of original characters. Then, divide that sum by the number of canons who figure prominently in the fic. The closer the answer (C) is to zero, the closer the characters in the fic are to their canon selves; the closer to 1 C is, the further from canon they are.

As an example, let's use a hypothetical HP badfic which heavily features Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Dumbledore, Snape, the Weasley twins and a Mary-Sue. In this fic, the Sue figures things out before Hermione, the twins are fighting over who gets to date the Sue, and Dumbledore is ignoring Harry in favor of some prophecy or other involving the Sue.

This leaves us with eight canons, four of whom are OOC, and one original character. For our ratio, this gives us an 8 in the denominator (bottom) and 4 and 1 in the numerator (top). So C=(4+1)÷8 which simplifies to the fraction 5/8. This is a little greater than one half, so this fic's characters, as a whole, are a bit more than halfway against canon.

If all these canons had been OOC, C would have been 9/8 which is greater than 1, signifying a very OOC group of characters. If all the canons had been in character, C would be 1/8, which is relatively small, signifying that the Mary-Sue is maybe the only real problem (barring weird occurences in the story itself).

There are a few things to keep in mind here. This ratio only takes the characters into account. Whether or not the story they appear in is good or bad fic depends on how it's handled; an alternate universe fic could still be goodfic despite having the characters behave differently than in the canon. Additionally, OC's may themselves not be Mary Sues or otherwise fit into the canon universe well. In these cases, you may want to ignore them if they're bit characters, or even include them as canon characters if they are an important part of the story. Finally, if the story includes ALL original characters, you may want to split them between canon-friendly and canon-unfriendly, to avoid dividing by zero (mathematically impossible).

In conclusion, this ratio probably won't work in every case, and it may be a matter of opinion as to whether any given canon is acting OOC enough to be counted (likewise whether an OC is bad enough). Still, it's a relatively quick way to generally determine how far the characters in a fic have fallen from where they should be.

Expand this post →

Re: Not as impressively complicated as yours, but... by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 22:36:00 UTC Reply

Defiantly could be refined, but still critical nonetheless. We should get together and talk metaphysics sometimes. On a chat program or somthin' somethin'.

The Department of Random and Useless Mathematics and Science

\^o^/

Defiantly? What? by Neshomeh on 2010-03-26 20:25:00 UTC Reply

I see no need to get defiant about it. That's not very polite. {; p

~Neshomeh, disguising her ignorance of complex mathematics with snark about typos.

Interesting theory... by Techno-Dann on 2010-03-25 18:23:00 UTC Reply

D seems to be hard to compute, but that's more of a sidenote than anything.

There really isn't any unified science to what we do - we write for fun, we pick targets based on their potential for entertainment, and so on. As what we're writing really isn't saving the universes, I don't see any massive need to enforce rules about what is a valid target and what isn't.

That said, multiversal metaphysics are fun. I've always thought of a continuum as a sort of a rope - each story is a strand, and they're generally heading in the same direction. Badfics deviate from that in some dimensional space (as characterizations are at least several dimensions each), and thus weaken the story line. What we do is running around pruning badfics, keeping storylines at least roughly in line.

Also, I'd like to note that there's a difference between deviating from the canon and badfic. There was one fic I read in which the West was North America, history continued about as it has (with the elves hiding when Columbus et all arrived), and the various characters from LoTR reincarnated at some future, post-nuclear-war point. Obviously, said fic couldn't touch the events of canon with a ten-foot pole, but it was goodfic. The biggest complaint I had with it was the amount of angsting that Arwen did.

(And yes, it is 'canon' with a single n. A 'cannon' is a large gun, a 'canon' is the body of work that is agreed upon as official for any story.)

Expand this post →

Re: Interesting theory... by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 22:31:00 UTC Reply

Yes, I had already figured out that D would be troublesome.

I know that the point is to be free and creative, placing no limits on the writer so that they can craft what they want, that IS no point of fiction. But some people like a good limitation here or there, and writing within limitations can certainly be more interesting at times. These are not rules for what is a target and what is not, everything is still a target, this formula just calculates the effort and skill and agent would theoretically need to successfully resolve a badfic. Its so much a limitation as a quantification of why agents are successful, as the dice are stacked in their favor.

I agree that there is a difference between deviation from canon and a badfic. But the deviance is the measure of the badfic to other badfics. The more twisted the and revolting the story is from other badfic, the more effort the author has put in to make it so (im not accounting for the author being randomly divergent as the end result is the same). So I don't see how the divergence from canon matters, when the measure is their hidiocity relative to other badfic, which puts emphasis on the most particularly horrible ones.

I will admit that it is neither particularly useful nor elegant, but I wrote it when I was sleep deprived. Now that Ive had some rest, Im looking through my thought process to see if I can refine it. At this point, you may are may not accept/like/want/need this, but I probabily wont be able to stop myself from thinking of it this way.

The though of a Department of Random and Useless Mathematics and Science popped into my head. With something along the lines of it being run by an artificial intelligence that has gone insane attempting to quantify badfic. It could be closely tied to R&D and I laugh thinking about the exploits possible involving such a department. But I digress, I am new.

As for the multiverse, the way I see it, you have this large cable of story threads stretching on into infinity that is canon. Surrounding it are the writers of fanfic. The good fanfic are like needles inserted along the flow of the story threads and hardly make any kind of distortion. Badfic, however, is like a giant tumor shoved into the story thread. It stretches the lines out of shape, causing them to fray and even snap with enough pressure. They will continue to grow as the author feeds them,impacting more and more threads. The agents go in and destroy these abomination and then reconnect/smooth/fix the threads of canon.

This cable is holding up all goodfic and canon, and if enough badfic is ever inserted in one place in time at a time, the cable snaps, plunging the multiverse into a darkness of fiction, and the cable must be woven again. No one wants this to happen, so the PPC protects the Grand Story Thread of Canon.

p.s. The misspelling of canon was intentional. He referred to canon as CANNON because if you deviated from canon, he would fire the Canon Cannon and obliterate you.

Expand this post →
Aye, what he said. by JulyFlame on 2010-03-25 18:43:00 UTC Reply

Also, now I really, really, would like a link to that story if it's still floating around and you happen to know where it is.

Unless I miss my guess... by Huinesoron on 2010-03-27 22:12:00 UTC Reply

... the story in question is Brothers In Arms by The Nightrunners. It runs over into Part Two on their profile, but sadly ended, unfinished, five years ago.

It does, however, contain the immortal line about how only the French could make nuclear winter sound romantic.

And I really need to re-read it. Thank you, Dann and July, for reminding me of it.

hS

Expand this post →
I'll see what I can do... by Techno-Dann on 2010-03-25 18:45:00 UTC Reply

It's been a few years, and the fic is hiding somewhere on the Pit. There was something about Paris being the White City (underground, to get out of nuclear winter), so that should be a few keywords, at least.

Re: Science and myself. by Meta on 2010-03-25 10:04:00 UTC Reply

Are you planning to open the department of statistical probabilities? I presume this is the kind of maths the Flowers use to assign badfics to agents. So long as rookies don't have to use it.... I think my heads hurting just trying to cogitate the possibilities. ;)

36 hours by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 10:09:00 UTC Reply

I could probabily word it better and make it easier to understand.

I would love to do something like that, but it really is fairly spontaneous and it would depend on if the oldbies think it is a good idea.

It would probabily be something along the lines of:

The Department of Fallacy Risk Management.

But again, Ive been here for what, 36 hours? And I'm already trying so spam a department? Lets slow down . . .

Expand this post →

Re: 36 hours by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 10:16:00 UTC Reply

It also dosn't help that half the equation is missing.

Line 10 should read:

Eo * Io

Re: 36 hours by Meta on 2010-03-25 10:19:00 UTC Reply

.... Yup. You're going to need to carry me to medical. I think part of my brain just fell out my ear.

Re: 36 hours by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 10:24:00 UTC Reply

Alrighty. We will get you patched up and ready for when I make some sense out of this.

Here, have some of my bleeprin until the doc fixes your head.

Re: 36 hours by Meta on 2010-03-25 10:39:00 UTC Reply

Oooh, Bleeprin, never actually taken any before..... *downs the bottle* I hope it doesn't have any alarming side effects.

Re: 36 hours by Meta on 2010-03-25 10:16:00 UTC Reply

I suppose there is something to be said for being eager.

Re: 36 hours by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 10:19:00 UTC Reply

Certainly, but lets see what the community thinks. That is kinda the whole point. Why even figure this out if no one will use it.

Also, I found the "Preview Message" button. XD

Re: 36 hours by Meta on 2010-03-25 10:41:00 UTC Reply

Found it? I didn't realise it was hidden. I've also got a bad feeling that the PPC isn't ready for two over eager types.....

Re: 36 hours by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 10:43:00 UTC Reply

Well, I hadn't noticed it before, it was practically invisible. Then I realized it existed and started to use it every once in a while.

Ready and rarin' to go! I still want to finish reading all the Originals first though.

Re: 36 hours by Meta on 2010-03-25 10:46:00 UTC Reply

Are you just reading the originals or are you going through other agents missions as well. I must confess.... I've been off sick from work these past couple of days and have spent pretty much their entirity reading all the PPC missions I can lay my grubby little hands on. There's some really good stuff out there.

Re: 36 hours by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 10:54:00 UTC Reply

I don't know whether to call you lucky or not. Ive been here so much because I just spent all night doing a college placement math test and there is no point in going to sleep at this time as the sun will be up soon.

Ive been reading them among other things, but I mainly want to finish the originals out of some sense of duty or something.

Re: 36 hours by Meta on 2010-03-25 11:06:00 UTC Reply

Well, PPC is most certainly an excellent way to while away many, many hours of free time. That is something we can all agree on.

Re: 36 hours by Ethanthecrazy on 2010-03-25 11:09:00 UTC Reply

Oh Yes, I have already wasted far more hours then I would have liked. It is a good experience though, and has helped me improve my own universe just from reading the wiki and FAQ. Remember, it is educational!

Re: 36 hours by Meta on 2010-03-25 11:13:00 UTC Reply

Gotta love that edu-ma-cational stuff. There's just so much to choose from, explore the wiki, loiter at the boards, or find a dark corner of the chatroom and read more missions.