Subject: I see.
Author:
Posted on: 2008-12-25 13:44:00 UTC
And have a query. Would it be acceptable to suggest alternative theories regarding PPC origins?
-
On Permission Givers by
on 2008-12-21 23:52:00 UTC
Reply
I don't think this has ever been done before, except in passing, so I think there's a need to lay down what, exactly, permission givers are, and what we aren't.
When Jay left the PPC, she had to set up some system whereby a degree of quality control would exist for potential PPC spinoffs. She gave Miss Cam, GreyLadyBast and Thalia Weaver the right to decide whether or not any given Boarder could write for the PPC. That right has been passed down through various people, until it came to the permission givers of today (see the Wiki). That's the history.
The purpose of the permission givers is to give permission. Very simple, no? The permission in question is permission to write spinoffs. In fact, permission givers have only three powers:
1/ To decide who is permitted to write a PPC spinoff.
2/ To revoke that permission when someone has clearly lost track of what they're doing. (This one's never been invoked, but I think it's implicit)
3/ To pass on permission giving rights to anyone else they choose. (This power is also held by the Board at large, although not by individual members)
So that's what permission givers are. Now let's cover what we're not.
We are not moderators or administrators or lawgivers or trendsetters. We're not in charge of the Board. We're not in charge of the PPC.
On another slightly incidental note, we're not arbitrators of what can or cannot become PPC canon. If one of us writes something, it has no more natural authority than anyone else's writings. When I write Crashing Down or End of the Beginning, it's purely because I enjoy writing it (usually). If someone wants to ignore it in their PPC writings, that's their choice, and they are entirely allowed to do that. By the same token, I'm then free to try and reconcile the two -- but not in any official capacity. That's just me being a meddler, and I wouldn't try to claim that anything they'd written was officially Not Canon.
So basically all we are is a filtering system to keep PPC missions looking like PPC missions. If you've got permission already, we're no more important to you than any other member of the Board.
This has been your "hS isn't actually a minor deity" post for the year. Thank you and goodnight.
hS -
I see. by
on 2008-12-25 13:44:00 UTC
Reply
And have a query. Would it be acceptable to suggest alternative theories regarding PPC origins?
-
Unqualified yes. by
on 2008-12-25 23:44:00 UTC
Reply
On two counts, actually:
1/ As said, the only thing that's canon is whatever you want to be.
2/ The Origins-Lofty Skies story at least, and probably the Reorganisation as well, are internal accounts written by someone who wasn't there at the time. It's probably Dafydd. And he was, as I say, not there. So it's entirely possible he was lied to.
With Crashing Down it's a bit different, since it's actually been referred to since, but no one is forced to agree with my writings.
hS -
This is a yearly thing? by
on 2008-12-22 19:18:00 UTC
Reply
Wow.
Hm. I'm not sure whether to wish I had your problems, or point and laugh. Which is less likely to get me smote (smitten? o.O), I wonder?
...ohwait, that's right, you don't smite the unjust with lightning. Darn. -
Yay, someone else who does what I do by
on 2008-12-24 15:35:00 UTC
Reply
And has no idea if the term is 'Smote', 'Smitten', 'Smited' or the like. It sorta reminds me of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, when they can't work out the plural word for Nemesis.
-
Wonders of the English language. by
on 2008-12-24 20:51:00 UTC
Reply
I think the most appropriate would be nemeses, though. Could be wrong. And then there's the plural of apocalypse, which I'm betting very few people have ever needed.
My dictionary says 'smote' is the correct past tense, with 'smitten' as past perfect? (I smite, I smote, I will smite, I have smitten, I had smitten, I will have smitten... yeah, it works.)
Though to be smitten is an entirely different thing.
...that word's starting to sound ridiculous now. >.> -
Yes, yes it is. by
on 2008-12-25 02:42:00 UTC
Reply
And what is the plural of apocalypse, then? I usually just use 'apocalypses', but if that's not right, I'd like to know for the future.
-
That's an excellent question. by
on 2008-12-25 03:35:00 UTC
Reply
My dashboard dictionary refuses to acknowledge that apocalypse may have a plural.
I'm partial to 'apocali' or 'apocalypsi' but from what I can tell the most commonly used one is, indeed, apocalypses.
Darn. -
Plurals (can't help myself here ...) by
on 2008-12-27 20:39:00 UTC
Reply
To have the plural form -i, a word generally would end in -us. The plural of things that end in -se is generally -ses e.g. case -> cases, Muse -> muses ...
so Apocalypes -> apocalypses. -
Apocali is fun, though. by
on 2008-12-25 04:47:00 UTC
Reply
I think I'll start using it.
-
You're not!? by
on 2008-12-22 16:50:00 UTC
Reply
... Well pants. Time to find a new central figure for my theological beliefs then. Or go into denial. One of those I guess, heh.
-
Very good points. by
on 2008-12-22 07:44:00 UTC
Reply
Though really, hS, I think it's the sheer amount of stuff you churn out on a regular basis that has earned you the reputation of a minor deity--that and the fact that it's good stuff. The Permission-Giver part is sort of incidental.
But still, in the immortal words of Monty Python's God:
"Stop grovelling! And don't apologize! Every time I try to talk to someone, it's 'sorry' this and 'forgive me' that and 'I'm not worthy.' It's like those miserable psalms--they're so depressing. Now, knock it off!"
~Neshomeh -
Slightly off topic (okay, very off topic) but... by
on 2008-12-22 22:27:00 UTC
Reply
Really? He says psalms? And here I was thinking it was "songs" for all of this time...
...Yes. I know that was completely irrelevant and not really something I needed to share. Really, I do. -
I think so. by
on 2008-12-23 20:29:00 UTC
Reply
The two words do sound very similar. I figure "psalms" makes the most sense in context.
~Neshomeh -
This year's almost over. Should I be worried? ;p by
on 2008-12-22 01:54:00 UTC
Reply
Still, can we really say it's a BAD thing for Permission Givers to be offered so much (almost-)unconditional respect? We defer to you guys, and give you the authority/support to take charge when things get out of hand.
But still, I'm glad to be rid of the bowing and scraping. *brushes dirt and Sharp Stones* from her knees*
;p -
Wait, so no marble altars or anything? by
on 2008-12-22 01:10:00 UTC
Reply
Drat. They were a hassle to get, too, this time of year, no mistake, I swear, those Dwarves get pushier every time I see them, oh, it's "We need to be paid in gold, not pink blood, I don't care how sparkly it is," and "But that kind of rock doesn't exist, you've got the wrong universe," and "That's physically impossible, ma'am," all the way.
Are you sure there aren't any deities around? Maybe a shrine to Makes-Things, or something? Hey! If we raise a shrine to the SO, there might be a pay raise in it! *Of course, the agents rush off, despite the almost complete impossibility of a pay raise of any kind*
Duly noted, hS. -
Seriously, he has to make one of these every year. by
on 2008-12-22 00:03:00 UTC
Reply
People become confused by his godlike attractiveness, and next thing you know they're sacrificing goats and singing hymns to his glory . . .
. . . what?
Well, maybe it is just me, then. :P
But yes. The Board has traditionally been a pure democracy (or possibly a flat-out anarchy. It's all in your perspective)--and while PGs can and should participate, and usually their opinions are well-informed, since they've been around so long, their opinions don't overrule other people's.
Also, Permission isn't actually a difficult hoop to jump through, or shouldn't be. PGs are mostly there to make sure that incoming authors 1) can spell (or spellcheck), and 2) don't write Sueish agents. Noble causes, I'm sure we all agree. -
I blame the Shipfic fests by
on 2008-12-22 20:35:00 UTC
Reply
and the amount of black leather therein for the hymns. The goat sacrificing might just be you :)
-
Admittedly she does have a lovely singing voice. (nm) by
on 2008-12-22 00:05:00 UTC
Reply