I dunno; seems like giving grades to me.

Subject: I dunno; seems like giving grades to me.
Author: Neshomeh
Posted on: 2014-02-28 15:32:00 UTC

Regarding a scale of 0-5 or similar:

I'm not sure it would be helpful to make the process more test-like than it needs to be. I mean, it is a test, but this isn't school, and we aren't teachers, and your results aren't going on your report card. Lots of people get freaked out by tests and scores, and a low number seems so much more... I dunno, final? than explaining "this didn't work for me because of reasons X, Y, and Z; here's how you can improve next time."

Also, it would only tell the writer how far the PG thinks they have to go, which can be extremely subjective. Take me, Phobos, and hS. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but I think we pretty well represent a continuum of tough to lenient, with Phobos being the most tough, hS being the most lenient, and me somewhere in the middle. What I see as a 2, Phobos might see as a 1, and hS might see as a 3 or 4—but verbally, we might all explain the problem much the same way and give similar advice for improvement.

And finally, related to the above, I believe there's always room for improvement in writing. The minute you stop thinking your writing could be better is the minute it starts to suck, so I'd be very hesitant to give a perfect score. I would have to be very impressed indeed.

That's just my reaction. Other PGs may feel differently—and I wouldn't be averse to providing a score on a particular person's request if they asked me to. I just worry that it could be intimidating and not as helpful as a verbal explanation to lots of people.

Regarding 0 or 1:

Isn't that basically the same as saying "this doesn't work for me" or "I like this," like we do now? Except that getting a zero on something might make test-sensitive people feel worse about themselves?

~Neshomeh

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Revamping Permission Giving - opinions sought. by Huinesoron on 2014-02-27 16:37:00 UTC Reply

Further to some discussion further down the Front Page, I've been trying to put together a new way of writing Permission Requests. Sometimes people have to do strange things like give multiple writing samples, or endlessly elaborate on their agent profiles - a hassle all round. This new approach is designed to help with that.

But, not being one of the Protectors or the Triumvirs, I've no authority to just randomly change things (thank goodness!). So we need to pool our opinions. I'm particularly interested in the thoughts of Permission Givers (would this help?) and people who don't yet have Permission (is this something you could do?) - but of course, everyone's opinions are valuable.

The Proposed Method

For the most part, things would go as they do now. You design your agents, discussing them with people as you please. You interact on the Board or Chat. You read missions. Maybe you do the Self-Check. You choose a badfic.

In preparation for requestion Permission, you write a brief bio for each of your agents. This consists of things like backstory, appearance, powers and abilities - and 'anything you think we need to know'.

Then you go to this page (specifics not yet finalised; layout to be changed). From the list of 'Control Prompts', you choose your favourite, and write a story from it - a story featuring your agents, to showcase them to us. The story should be about 200-500 words in length - a page or so, not an epic work. This is half of your writing sample.

Then (or simultaneously), you roll two six-sided dice (this will be linked in the instructions). The 4-column table won't be there - instead, you'll have a 6x6 grid laying out the lines from the 'PPC Version' columns. Each cell will contain two prompts (of the kind seen in the GDoc), and your two dice will direct you to a cell. From the prompts in that cell, you will choose one - and write a second writing-sample story. Same length, etc, as above.

The writing samples do not have to be canonical for your agents - they're samples, not an attempt to force you to have certain thing happen. Their purpose is to show: a) what your agents are like, in terms of personality, b) how your agents interact with each other, c) how you write your agents, d) how you write in general, e) that you actually intend to put time into writing PPC stories, and f) how well you deal with bizarre situations in your writing.

After that, it goes as normal: post your bios, samples, and badfic on the Board, and a PG will come by and comment. Simple as that.

So: thoughts? To my mind, the list of six points (a-f) is the key reason for doing this: some writing samples (where people have just picked something from their fanfic) only answer point d, and almost none answer f. The purpose of the table portion is specifically to get you away from just writing your agents meeting (the other common sample) - because, while that's still very valuable, it doesn't show how they'll interact after the first day. I think that's an important aspect of how they're written - and this will help you to showcase that.

Thoughts? Tweaks? Suggestions? ~~Outraged flame-filled rants about how I'm setting myself up as Dictator and Ultimate Authority and shall soon be installing spike pits to pen you all in here?~~

hS

hS

So, since everyone seems to be in agreement... by son_of_heaven176 on 2014-03-04 16:26:00 UTC Reply

When will you PGs be implementing this new system, and when will the Wiki page be updates to reflect this change?

Drat. Forgot there was more work involved. by Huinesoron on 2014-03-05 09:38:00 UTC Reply

At the moment, the table of prompts is not complete. There's twelve or thirteen slots that need filling, so anyone who's got any ideas, please come over and add them. Equally, if you have vehement objections to any prompts in there, throw in a comment and we can all discuss it.

I'm also just about to port the relevant sections of the Permission page into the document; that way we can have at least a rough version to paste in when the time comes.

As to when that will be... well, we'll want to find out if anyone's in the middle of working on something (Outhra is, sort of), but barring objections, 'when it's done' seems appropriate.

hS

I wholeheartedly agree. by SeaTurtle on 2014-03-02 19:05:00 UTC Reply

Everyone down below pretty much summed it up for me.

The random prompts are even good enough to be used as interlude material on their own...
Yes. This is a good idea. by 99Hedgehog on 2014-03-01 22:39:00 UTC Reply

Something I would do when asking for permission.

(On another note, I do have an idea for my agents and will ask for permission soon-ish.)

The Emperor Protects!
Sounds good by EileenAlphabet on 2014-02-28 17:21:00 UTC Reply

I would totally vote for you as Dictator and Ultimate Authority. ^^

I like this new idea, provided I have understood it correctly. It would mean that people would have to show not just that they can write, but that they can write something that fits with the PPC. I have seen (not a lot, but it does happen on occasion) people seeking permission, being asked to submit a second sample because their first sample, while good, was also very dark or humourless.
And it will show the agents interact as people, rather than just submitting them as little more than character sheets to be checked for Sue-tendencies and inconsistencies.

That last point, though. by Lily Winterwood on 2014-03-01 05:38:00 UTC Reply

I mean, if I were to give y'all my agents now, I could boil them down to traits that'd make them seem Sueish. All characters can be broken down into traits that make them seem Sueish. So it would make sense to have with it a writing sample that would show how the characters interact and thereby indicate that they aren't that Sueish after all.

("So basically my agent, Christianne Shieh, is a sassy girl with a tragic backstory, and sometimes has violent tendencies. She loves chocolate and making a mess for her partner to clean up. She also loves her partner but she'd never tell her that. She is intelligent and skilled with lots of weapons including Japanese weapons and loves katanas. She knows a lot about a lot of different fandoms. She is strong and doesn't need anyone ~~except her partner~~.")

I like this new idea. by son_of_heaven176 on 2014-02-28 14:50:00 UTC Reply

I agree with

HTML errors, how I love ye. by son_of_heaven176 on 2014-02-28 14:51:00 UTC Reply

Not. See my other post for what I wanted to say.

I like this new idea. by son_of_heaven176 on 2014-02-28 14:50:00 UTC Reply

I agree with Lily that sometimes a prompt is good to get the creative juices flowing. And given that good PPC writing requires a certain...insanity, should I say?...this is certainly a good way to determine if someone can write good PPC stories.
IÂ’m torn about this. by Hieronymus Graubart on 2014-02-28 14:37:00 UTC Reply

I seem to remember to have read "somewhere" that the writing example should preferably be something not written specifically to get permission, but this is definitely not in the Wiki page On Permission to Write PPC Stories linked at the top of the Board, nor is it in older versions of this page I’ve checked, back to a time when I definitely didn’t know about the PPC. Anyway, this seemed plausible to me, because it would show a general ability to write good fiction, not just the ability to write parodies set in the PPC environment. Also, I was surprised when the responses to the 2014 Boarder's Review Fest below revealed that many PPC’ers didn’t actually publish much fan fiction that isn’t a PPC mission or interlude.

There may be some potential for accusing us that we don’t really know how to do what we criticize. But of course this is a silly accusation anyway, and I should shut up because I never even considered writing fan fiction before I considered getting Permission.

On the other hand, I do understand that the ability to write parodies set in the PPC environment is what the Permission Givers need to see, and you found a good way to get this. But of course I will fudge my dice roll if I don’t like the prompts I’ll get :-)

HG

Re: IÂ’m torn about this. by Miah on 2014-02-28 16:54:00 UTC Reply

I believe that sometime in 2010 is when the shift happened from mostly non-PPC stories used in Permission to mostly things like 'How my agents met'. I joined in early 2010, and I remember feeling like it would be rather impolite to write in the setting before I had Permission to do so, but then things shifted, and it became the norm to use something with your agents. I used a writing exercise I had done in a class where I took a scene from a story I had written and changed the POV from the original story to that of different characters present in the scene. It was not a particularly pleasant scene, so I have sometimes wondered how I managed to get Permission with it, but that's not the point. I am pretty sure that some of the other people (Phobos and PC in particular) that mentioned having used non-PPC stories also got Permission around the first half of 2010. (I apologize if I've gotten the times wrong. I didn't verify. It's just what I think I remember.)

I also wanted to say that I was told back when I actually wrote PPC stories on a regular basis that I really didn't have the right to do so, since I hadn't written any fanfic. I've been an avid reader of fanfic for years, since well before I discovered the PPC. Now that I have finally written a fanfic, I can say that it does feel different. I still agree with what I said a few years ago, though, that it isn't necessary. The key is to be able to recognize good from bad, and you don't have to have written it to see that difference.

I got permission almost exactly 4 years ago. by Phobos on 2014-02-28 21:20:00 UTC Reply

Feb 20, 2010, to be exact. If anyone is interested in what it looked like (because it is an unusual request), here it is.

Phobos (as Barid) Requests Permission

-Phobos

Ha, I remember when I first tried the Permission thing. by Lily Winterwood on 2014-02-28 04:45:00 UTC Reply

If you guys don't remember, I was the one who posted a series of letters I wrote to a former teacher as my writing sample.

...Yeah, I'm not sure how I got Permission, either.

I like this, because:

1) Sometimes people need a little prod in one way with a prompt in order to write something.

2) This gives us a basis to see how the applicant responds to that prompt instead of being linked to a writing sample that might require a little more deciphering (like my letters, or someone who posts a fic for a fandom none of the PGs are familiar with, etc).

3) It helps give us a sample of how the applicant would write in a PPC setting. I write angsty drama sobfics all the time, but that's definitely not what I'm going for in a PPC setting (I know, I wrote two scenes of Christianne suffering from her tragic backstory; it does bleed over sometimes).

4) Even if it makes Permission harder to get, it only means that the difficulty of the application means that the applicant pool is narrowed down those who are dedicated to the idea of contributing to the PPC-verse with their own writing. It forces people to ask themselves exactly what their purpose is in joining the PPC.

5) University applications have people writing to prompts all the time. This is honestly nothing different. If anything, it's good practice for younger PPCers, since they'll have a lot of write-to-this-prompt stuff in the future, and about things that are less interesting than the PPC and their Agents.

Speaking of applications, I need to get around to revising my application to the Fulbright Summer Institute at King's College in London. Wish me luck, because if I get in we should totally have a Gathering.
I like it... by Elcalion on 2014-02-28 04:36:00 UTC Reply

... and not just because I'm terrified of the spike pits.

I can't think of any amazing improvements, but wanted to share my agreement with this idea.

Elcalion
I, for one, welcome our new Huinesoron overlord. by PoorCynic on 2014-02-28 02:42:00 UTC Reply

But in all seriousness, I strongly support this proposal. It promotes out-of-the-box thinking in regards to creating characters and situations. The six points you touch on are, to my mind, vital to understand if you want to write for the PPC.

I also intend to contribute some prompts of my own to your list. Once, you know, I think of some good ones.
I like it. by Ailavyn Siniyash on 2014-02-28 02:41:00 UTC Reply

As someone who still hasn't gotten 'round to applying for Permission, this sounds intriguing, and might actually get me motivated to do so. Or maybe not. Hanging around the Board is fun too.

But still, I like what you've done here, and I can't think of anything to say against it.

Maybe you could make submitting an outside bit of work a sort of optional extra, for situations where someone really wants to share something of theirs that's non-PPC but that they thing showcases their writing abilities perfectly?

-Aila

I like the 'optional extra' idea. by Huinesoron on 2014-02-28 09:10:00 UTC Reply

Obviously it's there implicitly anyway - there's nothing to stop you from linking to whatever you like in your Permission Request - but mentioning it explicitly might be a good idea.

On the other hand, it might lead to the idea that if you don't include the 'optional' part, you get 'marked down'. Which isn't true.

hS

Hmm by Ailavyn Siniyash on 2014-02-28 16:00:00 UTC Reply

Maybe there's a way of wording it so that it just comes across as a sidenote, nothing of importance? If we don't put much emphasis on it, it mightn't be taken with the same amount of gravity than it would if we had.

-Aila

Systematisation is (generally) a Good Thing... by Fish Custard on 2014-02-28 01:16:00 UTC Reply

...so I'm definitely in favour of this. It'll make it clearer as to exactly what PGs look for when granting Permission and ensure that prospective Permission-holders can write specifically for the PPC as well as simply being able to write well.
I volunteer as tribute! by RinaAndRanda (Rina) on 2014-02-28 00:06:00 UTC Reply

I asked for permission earlier today using the current method, but if you need a test subject, feel free to use me.
I like it. by Mikelus on 2014-02-27 22:54:00 UTC Reply

It seems like a much more helpful system than the one we already have.
This looks good to me. by Cassie on 2014-02-27 22:25:00 UTC Reply

It's a good system and prods people into writing new things. I think everyone else has got the comments covered, but I figured that my lovely PG Hat meant I should at least weigh in. :P
I like this system. by World-Jumper on 2014-02-27 21:35:00 UTC Reply

Clean, systematic, and gets people writing fresh things rather then previously prepared pieces. I probably would have been denied Permission if this were in place when I applied, but who knows, I might have kicked it in gear and actually pushed something through. Coincidentally, I'm far too busy right now to get my next mission written at all, so that's a little telling.

However... I think I'll give it a shot anyway. What the heck, later on, I'll put Jumper and Sarah through this permission test. We'll call it a test, hmm? It won't be Marvin and Printworthy, so I have to write something new for the control prompts, and I can explore them through the second test.

Should I put something on the line for this? Not my permission status, I'd rather not have my license revoked. However, there should be something... Hmmm... What do you guys think?

Do what you want. by Phobos on 2014-02-27 21:57:00 UTC Reply

If you want to use the writing prompts to work on your characters, that seems like a good idea. I don't think you need to put anything on the line, just use the prompts for practice.

-Phobos

Well, hS, you are the Ultimate Authority... by Herr Wozzeck on 2014-02-27 19:05:00 UTC Reply

...but that's not necessarily a bad thing in your case, now, is it? So whatever.

No, these new permission prompts seem like a pretty good idea, actually. I especially think it's a good idea to get the random prompts in there, as it does sort of make you think about other ways of approaching a situation in writing. God knows I could've used something like that when I first got permission...

But yeah, I'm on board here.
Well, you already know I'm on board. by Neshomeh on 2014-02-27 18:45:00 UTC Reply

Considering I've been co-conspiring and all. I think it removes ambiguity from the process, and that's always a good thing.

~Neshomeh

P.S. If you become the Dictator and Ultimate Authority, can I be your Grand Vizier and Trusted Adviser? I'm totally not holding a poisoned dagger behind my back. I promise. *g*
My thoughts by Phobos on 2014-02-27 18:28:00 UTC Reply

Let me break down the pros and cons, as I see them.

Pros:

-Less work for the person asking for permission. 400-1000 words total for the writing samples is less than one day in NaNoWriMo, and far less than most writing samples.

-Two samples gives the PGs more diversity to look at when making a decision, which gives us a better idea of the writing skills and voice of the asker.

-It is not a total overhaul of the system, it is more a focusing of the system. The only real difference is that we are being more specific about what we want in the writing sample portion of the request.

Cons:

-We are losing the ability of someone to post a really awesome non-PPC piece. That was what got me permission, back in the day. I do think your six points are a pretty good rebuttal to this point, though.

As you can see, there aren't a lot of Cons in my opinion, and the single Con is fairly weak. So, I think it is a good change.

-Phobos

ps - I advocate for pits filled, randomly, with either spikes or Jello. One never knows what one will get.
One potential issue by Cyba Zero on 2014-02-27 17:51:00 UTC Reply

What if a certain scenario would be OOC for both agents? For instance, I couldn't see Cyba and Eagrus arguing over 'shipping.

As a counter... by Huinesoron on 2014-02-28 09:15:00 UTC Reply

... we'll probably try to have the two prompts per roll be distinctly different - and make one more generic. So, for instance, one slot has these two:

-The agents compete.
-The agents argue over who gets to do the Duty.

Not every pair of agents will argue about who gets to do the Duty - maybe they're from different departments, so one does the killing, the other the exorcising. So you might be caught out by that - but pretty much any agents can be in a situation where they 'compete' - in sport, in seeing who can get to the comfy seat faster, whatever. So there will be something you can write.

hS

That's a good plan. (nm) by Cyba Zero on 2014-02-28 22:38:00 UTC Reply

Well... by Neshomeh on 2014-02-27 18:31:00 UTC Reply

To my mind, that just requires some creative interpretation of the prompt. Perhaps the two of them could be arguing about the (lack of) merits of shipping with someone else; or they could have a hypothetical discussion of who they would 'ship, if either of them could be bothered with that sort of thing; or maybe they've been possessed by Sue-spirits in the course of a mission, and that's why they're fighting. Since the random prompt doesn't have to be canon, you're free to make up whatever scenario you need to make it happen.

IMO, the ability to think around corners like that would be a very good thing to show off in a permission request. {= )

~Neshomeh

Re: Revamping Permission Giving - opinions sought. by Miah on 2014-02-27 17:23:00 UTC Reply

I love the prompts list. I've seen most of those come up at some point or another in missions and interludes, and they have been some of my favorite agent-based bits of PPC writing. A lot of them are the kind of thing that lets the agents grow as characters, and that's a good thing.

I think your list of six points is a good justification for the change, as well.
Systematic, yet a bit elitist. by darklordaakmal on 2014-02-27 17:16:00 UTC Reply

Based on the old system, many Agents are already doing only one mission. Others will take some time to craft their mission reports. By adding this system you are going to increase quality while decreasing quantity of sporked fics. Only the good enough of the best will be doing missions. Which can be a good thing or a bad thing. Or both.

Also, a marking system would be good too. At least, rejected permission-seekers can know their weaknesses and improve on it.

Thus IMHO. A Marking System.

Could you please clarify? by Neshomeh on 2014-02-27 18:37:00 UTC Reply

What kind of marking system would you like to see? The PGs are already supposed to comment on the requests regarding what we like or don't like—especially what we don't like. What system do you think would help us do better at it?

Also, I'm not ashamed to say that I, at least, am already elitist. I think PPCers ought to be better than average writers, especially if they're going to be critiquing others by writing missions, and I'll take quality over quantity any day. {= P

~Neshomeh

I have been well-answered. Thank you for all your times. (nm) by darklordaakmal on 2014-02-28 18:54:00 UTC Reply
Something like 1 to 5. by darklordaakmal on 2014-02-27 20:40:00 UTC Reply

There are six questions Huinesoron posed in his proposal.

a) what your agents are like, in terms of personality,

b) how your agents interact with each other,

c) how you write your agents,

d) how you write in general,

e) that you actually intend to put time into writing PPC stories, and

f) how well you deal with bizarre situations in your writing.

A marking system on each point may provide the permission seeker with a guide on how close they are to fulfilling the requirements. For example, 1 may mean the requirement is too far from being reached, and 5 means the requirement is fulfilled and the is no need to improve in that point.

Or even 0 to 1 will do. 0 is not OK, and 1 is OK.

I dunno; seems like giving grades to me. by Neshomeh on 2014-02-28 15:32:00 UTC Reply

Regarding a scale of 0-5 or similar:

I'm not sure it would be helpful to make the process more test-like than it needs to be. I mean, it is a test, but this isn't school, and we aren't teachers, and your results aren't going on your report card. Lots of people get freaked out by tests and scores, and a low number seems so much more... I dunno, final? than explaining "this didn't work for me because of reasons X, Y, and Z; here's how you can improve next time."

Also, it would only tell the writer how far the PG thinks they have to go, which can be extremely subjective. Take me, Phobos, and hS. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but I think we pretty well represent a continuum of tough to lenient, with Phobos being the most tough, hS being the most lenient, and me somewhere in the middle. What I see as a 2, Phobos might see as a 1, and hS might see as a 3 or 4—but verbally, we might all explain the problem much the same way and give similar advice for improvement.

And finally, related to the above, I believe there's always room for improvement in writing. The minute you stop thinking your writing could be better is the minute it starts to suck, so I'd be very hesitant to give a perfect score. I would have to be very impressed indeed.

That's just my reaction. Other PGs may feel differently—and I wouldn't be averse to providing a score on a particular person's request if they asked me to. I just worry that it could be intimidating and not as helpful as a verbal explanation to lots of people.

Regarding 0 or 1:

Isn't that basically the same as saying "this doesn't work for me" or "I like this," like we do now? Except that getting a zero on something might make test-sensitive people feel worse about themselves?

~Neshomeh

What I do. by Huinesoron on 2014-02-28 15:41:00 UTC Reply

I like to try and comment on everything anyway. My response to Rina's Permission Request exemplifies this, I think: in that case all the comments were positive, but if there's negatives, I'll go through all of them, as well.

The exception is when someone just... doesn't bother. If their writing sample consists of three lines with no punctuation or anything, I'm not likely to give a full breakdown. But in general? That's what I do.

Would making it numeric make things easier for the recipient? I... don't think so. Concrit is a very subjective thing, and responding to Permission Requests is very much a form of concrit. In fact, if I may mangle a Doctor Who quote: 'It's like reviewing, only there's a winner!'.

Oh, and: yes, I raaaaather suspect you and Phobos are stricter than me. The hazards of democracy. Clearly what we should have done was invest all the Protectorate of Plort's income into developing cloning technology, then grown ourselves an army of Jay to handle Permission...

hS

That's kinda what I do, too. by Phobos on 2014-02-28 16:01:00 UTC Reply

I like to run down the list of things we expect to see in a permission request and comment on each of those, then add any other notes I may have. I don't think I get into as much detail as you or Nesh do, though.

And yeah, I think it is safe to say I am on the stricter end of the spectrum. When I am on the fence with a request, my tendency is to deny permission. I believe both you and Nesh tend toward giving the benefit of the doubt to the permission request. Nothing wrong with either position, just coming at things from a different direction.

-Phobos

Which makes it wildly ironic... by Huinesoron on 2014-02-28 16:20:00 UTC Reply

... that in the Union of Plort, your barony is in the nice open plains, while to reach Neshomeh's or mine, supplicants have to cross mountains.

hS

I hadn't thought of that. by Phobos on 2014-02-28 16:38:00 UTC Reply

Maybe I should install pit-traps on the plains.

-Phobos
Except... by Neshomeh on 2014-02-28 16:38:00 UTC Reply

While supplicants do have to travel through Phobos' barony to visit the Temples of Kanun and Spelin and reach the Purmeshun Range, they don't actually approach the barons directly. Rather, I'd think we have to meet them there or in the city of Borrd, which means you and I are the ones forced to cross the mountains anytime someone goes on the pilgrimage to get knighted. Maybe that's why we go easier on them; we're too tired from the journey to be strict. *g*

"So, you've made your offerings at the temples of so-and-so, climbed the whopping great mountains, performed the rites of whatever, et cetera, et cetera, and you wanna be a knight now. Okay, sure. Knock yourself out. I'll be sleeping in the closest inn if you need me."

~Neshomeh

Sounds about right. by Ekyl on 2014-03-01 06:33:00 UTC Reply

I know I wrote Baron Huinesoron as having been waiting for Sir Ekyl at the Permeshun Range and passing judgement at the end of the journey, but I don't know if that's how it'd always be or what. It just seemed like the best analogue for the PGs showing up after you post your permission request and writing sample and reviewing it and stuff.
Wait, we do? What sort of dictatorship is this? by Huinesoron on 2014-02-28 16:44:00 UTC Reply

If I'd known I was going to have to do half the work, I'd never have... wait, hang on... we do have to do half (well, some of) the work... so I guess it's actually startlingly accurate. Hooray!

I'm going to make a guess that the 'ceremony' is held in Castle Otik - because we're suckers for tradition, and knighting people in Jay and Acacia's old fortress has a lovely feel to it.

Also I'm going to guess the most expensive inn nearby is kept afloat entirely by exhausted barons. After all, we all get the message when someone completes the pilgrimage - it's just that most of us only reach the city after they've already left.

Baron Huine-"Someone invent railways, already!"-soron

Maybe there's a teleportation spell? (nm) by Ekyl on 2014-03-01 06:35:00 UTC Reply

And on the flip side... by Huinesoron on 2014-02-27 20:24:00 UTC Reply

... I'm not clear why this would reduce the number of people writing missions. We already ask for a writing sample - it's just that a lot of the time, the writing sample doesn't tell us what we need to know, so we have to ask for another one. That exact scenario happened in LightDarkPhoenix's case. As a result, LDP ended up having to write a fresh sample on the fly. At least in this case, she'd've written one which she knew would be okay.

So I'm not sure how it's elitist - if someone's not willing to write a fresh 400 words to get Permission, odds are they're not going to get round to writing a mission anyway.

Of course, the whole Permission system is elitist... but I'm not allowed to scrap it entirely. ;)

hS

I am uttering the term elitist... by darklordaakmal on 2014-02-27 20:41:00 UTC Reply

Because the system is getting more complex yet more understandable. Or that the merit needed to write missions gets higher yet more achievable.

I am not denying that Permission system being elitist is bad or good.

I assume the number of mission-writers will decrease because more effort will be needed to complete the requirements. And I also assume that all Agents will have to ask permission once again, due to the system being changed. And everyone has to be evaluated. That is what I was thinking anyway.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. by Huinesoron on 2014-02-27 22:42:00 UTC Reply

No-one will have to re-apply for Permission, because the goal here isn't to make things more strict. All the things this will help us look for - my six points, for instance - are things we were already looking for. The goal of this is to make it easier for you to show them to us - and easier for us to see them. If anything, it ought to be making it easier, not harder, to get Permission.

But I'm getting the impression you think it will make it harder; unfortunately, I'm not clear on why you think that. Could you take a stab at explaining it again, and maybe in the morning when I've had some sleep I'll understand?

hS

I just think it will be a bit different. by darklordaakmal on 2014-02-28 04:59:00 UTC Reply

As you will them what to write instead of letting them choose their own way of story. Not necessarily harder or easier.

But... by darklordaakmal on 2014-02-28 05:02:00 UTC Reply

It will be harder, if the rolled theme is not their strong points, and are not in the permission-seeker's writing style. Do we have to roll once, or can we roll until we an have the theme we are comfortable with?

The intent is that you roll once. by Huinesoron on 2014-02-28 09:12:00 UTC Reply

We're trying to address that by having multiple options per slot, but yes, it's still limited. But... well, the goal is for the options to all be PPC-style prompts. So if 'strange randomness' isn't a writer's style - why are they trying to write for the PPC? It's sort of what we do.

hS