s/s, I don't know how you read posts. It is strange how much we are saying the same thing and you don't realize. I wish that the bystanders can speak out what they have observed but it doesn't seem to be likely.

Quote:If 'Irreconcilable Differences' is valid grounds for a divorce, it should certainly be valid grounds for schisming a volunteer collaborative project in which we have a lot less personally invested.

This is correct. And the key word here is 'irreconcilable differences'. Throughout my argument, I have been telling you that there was no irreconcilable differences. What I have been saying again and again are:

1. We assumed that we shared a goal but that assumption is wrong;
2. We need a shared vision in order to continue;
3. To create that shared vision, I suggest that we first verbalize our vision, and then select or create one through compromise or voting;

My argument that you are not collaborating is that you avoid 2 and 3, and try to pursue your own vision without trying to collaborate. There is no justification to say that the differences are irreconcilable. In fact, I am provoiding a way to reconcile the differences, and you are denying the process to reconciliate.

Quote:I am not kicking anyone out - note that you are still here, talking and talking. I am inviting you, Estok, to pursue your ideas in a separate thread - don't you think your top-down discussion will do better in a new thread anyway? Everyone else is welcome to stay here, go with you, participate in both projects, or participate in neither project.

I do not see that this project be transformed into a separate pursue of ideas. I do not see this coming because this is what this forum is about. Different people have different goals and they post it here for others to comment on. We already have such system, and therefore when we say collaboration I don't see it as that existing system. My discussion of a top-down approaching is not to glorify or to promote that approach. A top-down approach is actually pretty standard and basic for collaborative efforts. My discussion is to tell you how, your approach is unfit for a collaboration, because it intrinscally favors hidden cards and assumptions. It is not a transparent method in which we put all the cards on the table and discuss equally.

If I am a leader of this project I will out right disband and reform a new project. What I cannot do is to continue this project under the name of collaboration. A failure to collaborate occured in this thread because the group does not want to compile with the process to share a vision. This is the cause of the failure. I am stating this explicitly for the bystanders. If there is a leader who let this happen that leader should resign because it is a failure of leadership.

If I were the leader I would have reacted more swiftly and firmly on the issue. Given the current mindset and inability to compile for collaboration, I would kick you. Not for the fact that your visions and ideas are different, those differences are expected, but for your rejection to create a common vision. And I would say it in front of you that I would kick you and why I would kick you instead of PMing with someone then showing up with a privately planned leave.

Quote:Evryone else is welcome to stay here, go with you, participate in both projects, or participate in neither project. I think it is only fair that I keep this thread since I have contributed the majority of the ideas in it, and the updated design document since you don't want it anyway, it's all that specific content you think needs to be rethought.

This is ridicule of a collaboration if you continue like this. I don't mind you starting a new thread and continue with Xenallure, but it is a disgrace if you continue it here. (Starting a new project and leaving this project are two different actions by the way). The number of ideas is not the sole measure of contribution (on top of it I do not believe that you can claim you contributed the majority of the ideas, unless somehow our ideas don't count). Another measurement that you are failing is to support the other ideas and to resolve the differences.

Quote:I would even enjoy continuing to discuss premise and what makes a great story with you, I just don't want to do it in the context of trying to work with you, it's too frustrating.

I would enjoy such discussion, but just not right now. For your frustration, it has to do with your expectation. I think that you are not prepared for collaboration. You held too strongly to your expectation and fail to value the expectations of others. You engaged in a collaborative effort, but you rather hold on to your expectation than the expection of the group. This is the source of frustration.

Quote:Think of it this way - if you think I am "the most destructive force in a collaborative project," why the heck do you want to be collaborating with me?

I think you misunderstood something. To say it precisely, I am not collaborating with you, I am engaged in a collaborative project. The difference between the two statements is a subtle fundamental difference. I am speaking for the collaboration of the project. It is not a matter of whether I want to work with you or not. There is nothing personal about it. However, as a participant, I would kick you if I am a leader. However we don't have a leader, therefore it is my responsibility to address my view on the state of this effort, and to express my views on the nature of disagreements, the need to create a common vision.

Quote:Let me tell you about colaborative projects. I have participated in a lot of them, and I think I have a good experential knowledge about how they work. A collaborative project is like an Athenian Democracy. The most pursuasive and persistent speaker with the loudest voice wins.

This is in part true with respect to the reality of collaboration. But it is perculiar that you did not address the roles of the supporters. In many ways, I see you as a strategic participant. Your primary goal is not to explore the ideas of others, but to make your idea to be selected. To you, (based on your view of Athenian Democracy) a collaborative project is a tool for you to win over the minds of the other participants, to convince them to achieve your goal. In the statement of purpose, you stated that we were supposed to pool our talents. Yes, of course, as long as those talents compile with your idea. This is an okay way to participate. If I am a leader I won't kick you for that. However, in terms of collaboration, you are playing a manipulatiive game, in which your attutide to pursue your own idea by using a loud voice (deflecting and ignoring the other ideas) is destructive. How many posts from 5M did you ignore? Is 'collaboration' just an empty shell for you to exercise your manipulative needs?

Quote:It is your civic duty, if you have an idea you think will benefit the state, to speak up about it. You participate in the state because the state benefits you; if it didn't benefit you, you would leave.

Yes, we are speaking out. And you are ignoring them and denying that channel of communication.

Quote:All citizens are welcome to stay and contribute to the process or leave and live differently elsewhere, but they are NOT welcome to foment civic unrest - that's why they made Socratese drink the hemlock, you know.

By the way you argue for your vision, the citizens are not really staying to contribute to 'the' process, but 'your' process. My vocabulary is limited, I have no other word to describe this situation concisely except 'selfishness'.

Quote:But whether you believe it or not, my natural inclination is not to be a monarch; I would be much happier as the adviser to the king. I prefer to give advice about what should be done and how it should be done, but I don't want the role of being the one who commands others to do it -

You are correct. You are not a monarch, I am sorry for my analogy, because you don't have the guts to take responsibility as a monarch. The king that are serving is a puppet king. It is a simple mean for you to rally help to achieve what the knights think is for the king, but in fact for you.

Quote:the only reason I have slipped into that role here is that we lack a true leader, and if there's one think I've learned from many failed collaborative game projects its that without somebody who is goal oriented pushing the project along, in a very short period of time there is no project to participate in.

You are adapted to soft-dictatorship and manipulation, and I don't deny that. You have a way to deflect and distract the opinions, views, and criticisms of others to make them work for you. In the beginning I spoke slowly and nicely that we needed to share a central goal. That soft approach did not work, because you skillfully deflected it. As time progressed, I needed to adopt a harder and harder approach to make it explicit that we are not going in the direction of a collaboration, that the true king got kidnapped. Your approach might have actually worked if instead of having a smiley in every post, having a smiley for every sentence.

Quote:Of us all I have spent the most time figuring out what I do and don't enjoy writing, and what problems in writing i want to work on at the moment to further my personal growth, so naturally I have strong ideas about what kinds of things I want to write about as part of this project.

In effect, this collaborative project is about us coming up with an immersive story for you to exercise your writing needs. Now, what if there was an equally dedicated writer who wanted to write those parts, and we voted and she got the portion instead. What are you going to do? What if, in fact we discussed the vision clearly, and the character skew is out of question, he is not to be included. What are you going to do?

I know what will happen. The others will be the one forced to leave, instead of you leaving. Because you will keep your loud voice over the others and exercise your manipulation to make them go your way. If any one says,

"wait a minute, this is not what we signed up for, that was just your assumption."

You would say, "oh well too bad you didn't say it in the beginning."

"But I did say it in the beginning," dude said.

"Well anyway it has been so long so we might as well stick to the idea," you said.

"What idea? Those are just your ideas, not the ideas of the group," dude said.

"Why don't you guys break apart so that I can continue my idea with my cozy teddy bear. And you guys can continue on yours, and I won't give a damn to what you guys do," you said.

"Um. How in hell is that collaboration," dude said.

"Of course it is :)," you said.

Quote:It's hardly my fault if others haven't analyzed themselves and figured out what they want.

This is untrue. I have a very clear idea of what I want to write about. However I save those for myself. Everything I want to do in this project I say explicitly and I expect the others to do the same. It is not a hidden knife that I use to backstab everyone else with.

Quote:If after all that you still feel that I have betrayed you or the project, let me point out that betrayl, faith, and good sportsmanship are not concepts that even exist in my philosophy. The closest thing I believe in is the golden rule, and I feel that I have treated everyone fairly in treating them the way I wanted them to treat me.

I don't see how you treated us fairly when you rallied us for a collaborative project and ignored our posts and ideas while pushing your own vision regardless any opposition, then trying to get rid of us in the name of collaboration.

Quote:Now its time for me to return the favor and describe your character:
Estok, if he took a Keirsey temperment test, would be almost 100% P, which means that he loves possibilities but doesn't want to see them concretized into one definite dcision.

This is a false assumption, and a very deep misconception. The very purpose of a top-down approach is to allow the making of concrete, strongly founded, definite decision. I have said many times that the approach is a decision making hierarchy. This is the reason why I believe that this part of the description of my character is false. And your misunderstanding of my position persisted eventhough I explicitly told you. Why the persisted misconception? Are you just trying to strategically build a case to prove that you and me should not work together? That was false info you used in that argument, a deception to achieve your purpose.

Quote:This handicaps him from having a strong artistic vision of his own or supporting anyone else's, such that in a collaborative project he will be a counter-productive force because he will never be happy with anything that is decided on, simply because it denies all the other possibilities.

I have a strong artistic vision. But unlike you, I am not imposing it on the project. I am not forcing everyone to use my vision of the story. How many times did I say that we need to list them and vote on it? How many times did I say that we need to discuss it? I am open to other visions, therefore I am asking us to state those visions. This goal alone is evidence that I am supporting the visions of others. What you are doing to the collaboration is censorship. And I am against that. I am for decision and I am happy with decisions. But not the way you suggest we make them. 5M and I both opposed to the way you were making decisions (the linking method). I oppose it even more now that it totally supports a hidden agenda, your hidden agenda. I said that in general is it wasteful to assume that we share the same subconscious, therefore a linking method is not appropriate. It is appropriate for you because you have a hidden agenda. Due to the nature of the linking method, there cannot be any extrinsic, strong reasons to support or deny a decision. Therefore, each element, each decision is up for persuasion. Being the one holding the hidden cards, you are the one that is most likely to win all the argument and have everything go your way. Avatar god, if you are reading this, this is the same effect that you accused me of for 13-tails. But for 13-tails I was simply using it to show a vision, not as a way to backstab any of you. There is no way that s/s can accept a top-down approach because it will force her to reveal the hidden cards. And that put her agenda at risk. And risk is what she does not want to take, because this is not a collaboration to begin with, this is a tool for her to achieve her purpose.

Of course, that can't possibly be the truth. S/S is not a deceptive, manipulative, selfish, self-centered moderator at this forum.

Aside from that comment, your description is false. The top-down approach is a hierarchy that instead of keeping all the possibilities, limits them. Anyone who is capable of seeing the top-down approach as a tree structure, will understand this. For every high level decision we make, a main branch at that level is selected. Effectively, it narrows the scope of the search space by killing the other possibilities through a hierarchy of decision. What makes you think that I want to keep all the possibilities? If you try to attack, at least aim first.

Quote:What he really wants to write is an ambiguous tangle of metaphor and dream that leaves the reader in doubt as to what actually happened in the story; he should study the works of Paul Park and M. John Harrison, and the adventure game _Sanitarium_.

I am not sure whether this is true or not. I am for both having a concrete, single truth resolution, and for multiple truths, or a puzzle that leaves solely for the interpretation of the player. If you know what Rashomon (a japanese movie) is, that type of ending is acceptable. Rashomon is about a murder that happened in the woods, and all the witnesses have a different story to tell of what happened, at the end of the movie, the view is not left with one definite truth, but a set of accounts that are partly believeable, party unbelievable. The central idea is not to present a certain truth behind the mystery, but how individuals distort the truth to disguise their flaws and faults. The mystery is a tool to convey this central idea. While I agree with you that it is acceptable for me to let the player be in doubt as to what happened in the story, the message of the story is not to be mistaken or presented in an ambiguous way. If you watched Rashomon and go, "oh man, so what happened in the woods? what is the one truth? this movie really sux." Then you are too dumb to understand what the movie is about.

On the other hand, I am okay with one definite truth. My primarly reaction against it is that it is overdone, and linear. If there is only one definite truth, why would you replay the game? For a multiple truth story, I want to create an effect in which after the players finished the game, they can actually discuss and debate on whether that was the truth. I want the player to replay it with different decision to find flaws and discrepancies. And from that process, I want the player to realize the integration and complexity in the construction of the story, that he cannot find any flaws or contradictions in the presentation of the multiple, seemingly conflicting truths. This is one of the visions in terms of mystery that we would be discussing in a top-down approach. This is a vision that we would have voted on it as a group.

Quote:He should not try to work with anyone who actually wants to have created a finished game design within a year,

This is utterly non-sense. The top-down approach is commonly employed for various design projects because it is efficient and fast. Let me say it again. The top-down approach is commonly used because it is fast. Now, as a matter of fact, I can't guaruntee that a game design is created in a year. Unless I have an idea that I already have been thinking for 4 years, and setup a collaborative project in which all I do is to push that idea and reject the others. What I can guarantee is that I won't have any hidden agenda, everything I think, any idea I have, I will put on the table, we will create concrete, shared vision, in which no member is left behind and ignored. and discrepancies we have we will discuss and settle in a meaningful, top-down approach.

Quote:especially sunandshadow who is about 80% J, which means that she is not happy unless decisions and progress are being made, and is very aware of the principle of artistic unity, which means that all decisions should fit together and ambiguity should be eliminated.

This description is about you. The awareness of the principle of artistic unity, and how decisions should fit together and ambiguity should be eliminated are values supported by the top-down approach. The question is, how do you envision that such unity is achieved in a collaborative setting? Without creating such vision, don't you think that it is just your unity that you are trying to achieve? In other words, won't a collaboration becomes an expression of your artistic unity, instead of that of a group?

I am not preaching that if there are two engineers, one trying to design a car and one an airplane, they should collaborate. But that fact that the original premise of this project was not precise, and therefore, the vision is something we should identify and share as a group. If you believe that you are one of those engineers, and therefore you should leave, then you made a mistake in the way you created this project. If you reread the post in the beginning of this thread, it was clear that we were gearing towards a mystery game. And the mystery was about what happened in the past and why there were two additional races. It was you who drifted away. It was you who made me realize that we did not share the same vision. For some time you were outnumber 2 to 1 by 5M and I. 5M and I held the similar vision on mystery, a view that you disagree. Around that time, AG entered to shift the balance. As a late-comer, AG in effect share the same vision as you. It was in interesting coincident that just as it didn't seem to gear towards your way, an reinforcement arrived. After that, your ideas, similar clustered on itself, in which you unintentionally assume that we agreed on, or intentionally trying to deceive us that 5M and I are now the distractions, and the hinderances.

Quote:In light of this, lets talk about the story being a 'gem'. From my perspective, a well-designed story must be unified - it cannot have two conflicting or unrelated central ideas.

This is correct. My central idea was about conflict, but it does not conflict with your central idea. You were the one that advocate the minimization of conflicts as a process. I told you how they are not conflicting, and AG actually got my idea that they are not conflicting. Why do you reinterpret my definition to pose them as a conflict?

Quote:The only way it can have more than one central idea is if they build on each other to convey a more complex and complete moral.

This is true, again. The way I combined the two central ideas posed a more complex moral. What you were objecting is based on your misinterpretation.

Quote:To be unified a story should never be ambiguous in what it is communicating to the reader.

This is also true. The question is, how do we achieve this if we do not communicate those very ideas among the writers? We all follow your idea, is that it?

Quote:A mystery is simply a piece of the story which is initially hidden from the audience; it must have a well-defined shape and posibilities (one definite truth behind it), and eventually be competely revealed, preferably within two chapters where it is replaced by another small mystery. By the end of the story (meaning the game's overall plot arc, not a single gameplay) all such mysteries should have been resolved such that the charaters, setting, and plot are completely understood by the audience.

For this I consider to be a narrow view of what mystery is. A mystery is a tool for presenting a message, it is a vechicle to achieve a meaning behind. For this matter, I disagree with you that a mystery must have one definite truth behind. It is as narrow as saying 'if you include a clown in the story, the clown must be there to entertain." In my views, I accept mystery as a tool to convey a greater meaning, such as that in Rashomon. I accept the way you see mystery. It is a possible way that we would end up implementing it. However is it not your decision or my decision to tell how mystery is implemented. It belongs to the group, and you are denying that process of decision making.

Quote:Characters should be vivid and attractive in a variety of ways, slightly larger-than-life, with consistent and clearly drawn personalities and philosophies. Cultures should be consistent, natural outgrowths of the biology and personality of their populations, and should be rich with anthropological detail. This should be fundamental to the characters thoughts, speech, and actions insuch a way that they are clearly not quite standard humans, and fundmental to the plot such that this plot could clearly only happen in this culture.The plot should be driven by the characters' desires and methods of attempting to achive them, and fleshed out by their emotional responses to the events of the plot. The story should contain the whole range of human emotions, but mostly focus on characters feeling anxious, smug, wry, depressed, surprised, happy, caring, daring, and desirous, while emotions such as rage and disgust are used minimally and usually only with the bad guys, and grief, hatred, and horror are probably best off avoided altogether.

If you compare the way you describe a 'gem', the main difference is that you are concerned more with the details, again, the quote that youa re more concerned with lines than the form. None of what you expressed here are required for me, they are all too low level requirements.

In a nutshell, a story is a high gem if it is able to present a new idea through new implementations. It is a gem if it is able to present an idea through a new implementation. It is also a gem if it presents a new idea through normal implementation. It is an ok story if it presents a normal idea with normal implementation. It is an experiment if it presents no idea but new implementation. It is nonsense if it presents no idea and normal implementation.

Quote:To achieve the desired worldbuilding, a historical-style approach and a science fiction or fantasy world are necessary, and a bldungsroman plot structure is also helpful. To achieve the desired emotions, the plot must focus on romance, ambition, and bariers to these, particularly prejudice. The ending must be dramaticaly satisfying (I have described the criteria for this previously when 5MG asked) and the ending should be happy, although in our multiple gameplay structure the first gameplay's ending should not be compleely happy. Tragedy, gore, fear, and violence must be mostly avoided.

Additionally, the main character should be introspective and speak in a slangy or british humor style, while the narration should be clear glass style. And I could go on and on for paragraphs about what morals are or aren't acceptable in a story, but currently I personally am specifically interested in writing about how an abused and lonely character(Skew) becomes loved because of the main charater's open-mindedness and creative problem-solving. I am also generally interested in submissive loyal followers and characters with a secret to protect(Follow). If you looked at the design for my novel you would find these archetypes there too, in my characters Lieann and Attranath. Bunny is an npc version of my main charcter Merru. Part of what I am getting ot of participating in this collaborative project is experience working with these archetypes in a simpler plot structure than my own (simpler in that the characters' stories are mostly independant rather than tightly intertwined like in my novel.)

My only question is, is any of these up for discussion? Given the type of specifications in your definition of gem, don't you think that you won't be up for alternate views or ideas? In what ways do you think that 5M, AG, you and me are supposed to together build a framework, or that what you have mentions is pretty much the only way to do it, and we are just contributing to fill in the gaps?

Quote:Desiderata by Max Ehrmann
Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

This quote does not match my definition of conflict. If you don't see why they are different or what there difference is, let me think. For example, several soldier identified some enemies ambushsed ahead. This state, is a conflict, because the enemies are seemingly opposing the soldiers. Then the soldiers decided to engage in armed combat with the enemies. The combat is also called a conflict, but this is not how I am using the word.

Another example:
Skew treated the captured unkindly, but instead of seeing him like how others see him (the way skew expects), the PC sees him differently. This is a conflict between the character's expectation and the reality. Without this conflict, Skew will not start to think in other views or start to question his own behavior.

Quote:(extracted from _The Analects_)The Superior Man has nothing to compete for. The Superior Man is broad-minded. The Superior Man endures equally well privation and surfeit. The Superior Man judges others. When the Superior Man deals with the world he is not prejudiced for or against anything. The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The Superior Man is self-confident without being arrogant. With firmness, strength, simplicity and caution in speaking, kindness, and decisiveness you will be close to virtue. Practicing archery is like practicing to be a Superior Man. When you miss the bulls-eye, you look for the error in yourself. Correcting yourself and not expecting things from others, you will not create resentments. Get information from people by being cordial, upright, courteous, temperate, and complaisant.

What kind of story do you envision to create with a bunch of Superior Men? In what way do characters in your design resemble the Superior Man? A superior Man is sure were the bulls-eye is. And when a Superior Man shoots and misses, he knows exactly what needs to be done to correct it. What is there to talk about in the story?

Quote:Original post by Avatar God
I am much, much less likely to agree with you, Estok, when you refuse to compromise with views that are different.

When was the last time that there is a compromise to make and I refused? When you were saying that it was a compromise, did you know what 5M's view was? Or was is just a compromise between s/s, you, and me?

All the standard compromises being discussed are on the oprl. The other ideas are simply flying around. They are preliminary.

Quote:You refused to respond to me when I was civil and giving ideas of compromise (some of which were good, some not so),

I do not mean to refuse to respond. If I did I apologize. What was the last issue you wanted me to respond? Again, compromise make no sense if we don't know all the views. In most of the cases, I intentionally do not want to compromise because 5M's view is unknown, and I don't want you to have an assumption that it is settled. For example, if you, s/s, and me compromised on an issue, and 5M actually had a different view. What should 5M do when he comes back? Won't he be more pressured to conform? This is the principle of synchronization to stall it. Anyway, what was it that I refused to respond?

Quote:The only problem with your assessment is that I don't agree with you most of the time! You will say something, I will respond with a different idea, and you somehow decide that we agreed. Well, dammit, I didn't agree! And I seem to be absent on many issues because I'm really fucking busy.

If that is your accusation, I don't see how that is different from my accusation that s/s somehow decide that we disagree eventhough I see them to be the same. However anything that I misinterpreted you can put it back on the table and correct me.

Quote:You've done an awful lot of work here, and a lot of your probing questions have been really helpful. Unfortunately, you swing too much to melodrama, present totally unrelated ideas, refuse to compromise, and attack people.

What is it that is melodramatic about my ideas? I have the same accusation made to s/s on the way her characters are created. And I was leading her to tell me whether my views were correct and why they were not melodramatic. Because I don't understand her, that was why I asked for her to clarify. When did you ask me to clarify and I refused? When was the last time that when you say something is melodramatic, I refused to see your view and kept pushing it? When s/s said that one of the visual design for a fox girl is cheessy, and makes her think of a low-class story, I actually agreed totally. The girl is indeed cheesy, and I didn't like her for that. However that was my interpretation of what s/s's view of kitten is, sparkly eyes, innocent, and stuff. It was part of the process to understand and strike out misconceptions. I would like to see how s/s's presentation of kitten actually. That was the logical next step if not overshadowed by the need to declare high level visions. There are hits and there misses. Again, this is just part of the process to get in sync.

If you remember the drawing on celtic plus oriental style for the magicals, I made such sketch and s/s said that it was a hit, a resemble to what she thinks should happen for the magicals. Now, however, don't get this wrong, that hit alone is not a compromise nor agreement, it was a simple evidence that I knew what she is talking about. A compromise needs to be made by the group, and for that regard 5M hasn't said anything, in fact I didn't say anything either, that sketch was just an acknowledgement. If you think that there was a compromise or that I refused to compromise, your conclusion is premature. We haven't got to the point to compromise.

Quote:Oh, and if someone ELSE presents an idea, you seem to purposely misinterpret it to make fun of the person as a way to strike down the idea. Or maybe you honestly don't understand some of the other points, in which case clarification would be nice.

I did ask for clarification, just look at the length of exchange on the topic of skew's subplot. If I didn't ask for clarification, what did I do?

Quote:And if you had all these such great ideas early on for running the project, you should have taken that stand that you claim you would have and said what you thought. You should have let us know that you weren't happy with how things were progressing - much more clearly and plainly! But you didn't, and now we're where we are.

I did. 5M also did. We both opposed s/s's way, and in fact we all opposed against one another. I don't see how you can say that I did not state it clearly and plainly. The first one was on page 3 and it continued throughout. If page 3 is not early enough, (given the fact that page 1 is the survey, and page 2 practically all happened on the same day), then I apologize for not reacting sooner. Personally I regret not doing that firmer and soon, but given the state we had, what type of argument do you think would have made a difference? If you were me, what would you have said to s/s and 5M to convince them?

Again, I already said this recently. If we as a group think that it is too late to change the vision that s/s believes in, then we as a group can continue with that vision. Now, adopting that vision and using a top-down approach are two separate issues.

It is never too late to change to a top-down approach. For example, if we decide to go with s/s view, and adopt a top-down approach, then s/s' high level goals will simply be the high level choices of the tree. Then we can continue working on a sophisticated dating-sim, and I do have more character suggestions that I have reserved in case of this situation. And I can resume to my original, intented role of asking probing questions that s/s said would help fill out the design doc in no time and turn her developer journal in a textbook.

I had to give up that 'constructive mode' and adopt this what you can call the 'burning mode' because there is something unjust being done to the collaboration process.

All I have been saying is that we are in a state where we need to make a crucial developmental decision. This is not a state in which we break apart, because there is a way to solve it and continue.

We cannot change the fact that we made a mistake in the past. There is another mistake we are heading if we split. In fact, if 5M also support spliting that would be equally acceptable.

Quote:In short, if you think that you and sunandshadow have such wildly irreconciable differences - to the point that you would have kicked her out long before now - AND knowing that sunandshadow is in charge here, then it seems like the solution is for you to leave, and as quickly and as quietly as possible.

I said that there is no irreconcilable differences. I said I would kick her because she is not pro-group-based-decision making. If you think that it is odd that while you are accusing me of not being cooperative and I am accusing her being not cooperative, here again is the subtle difference:

I am up for compromises after the each of the groups have expressed their views, and their views are understood. I don't see how it is a compromise made by the group if part of the group is not involved in it.

I don't see s/s as in charge here. No one is in charge. Of course she is in charge in your eyes, yesman. Don't go nutz dude, I am just teasing you. Look on the bright side, calling you a yesman is the worst I can possibly do. From here on now it can only get better.

You and s/s have a long relationship. It is a fact that you two share similar visions. It is purely coincident that your observable actions fit that profile.


One point I need to make is that the artistic vision s/s said cannot be required for this thread. In the original post:

Quote:It's been a while since we've done a forum game or other collective writing activity. Terlenth suggested we try collectively writing a real game story, and I think this is an interesting idea and worth giving a try. I want to make this activity open to all forum members

It was stated that this project is open to all forum members. An initial shared vision cannot possibly be a requirement because s/s is not navie to assume that all forum members have the same vision. I don't know her thought on to what degree such vision would vary, and to what degree we would discuss and share them. It was a piece that was overlooked by us as a group. S/S is not responsible for this mistake because she is not the leader. Flag raising is something extra I did.

With respect to your pervious experience with wiki, what were the causes of failure? And do you agree or disagree a top-down approach as an appropriate approach for future collaborative projects?

Quote:Oh, and if someone ELSE presents an idea, you seem to purposely misinterpret it to make fun of the person as a way to strike down the idea. Or maybe you honestly don't understand some of the other points, in which case clarification would be nice.

The most recent clarification was actually the preliminary for P26. In which I described s/s's view and she said that it was in general correct. We were in fact gearing towards a settlement between those ideas. In respond to AG's pervious post, that was clearly an evidence that I am trying to compromise. And that there was clearly no misinterpretation. I did not present her view to strike it down nor to make fun of it. It was presented to show my understanding, a necessary basis for any compromise. If you think that I have changed, you can believe it that way.

What was it that made you change your mind to not support P26, s/s? Your reaction after I posted about the current states of central idea, seems to me a shortcut to avoid a compromise. In my post, I showed our views, and provided a possible way to compromise. In no way did I say that my central idea has to stay or that yours will be eliminated (even though if that happens, isn't that part of compromising?) For that regard I may have misinterpreted your prompt. In your pervious post, you said that:

Quote:Estok, before I respond to your post, will you please clarify what you consider to be the complete list of highest-level topics or 'checkboxes' that need to be decided for a poject of this type, and what you would guess their answers to be from previous discussion and consensus?

Now I see that there are two ways to interpret it:
1. Predict s/s position on highest-level topics;
2. Predict the outcome of our compromise;

I took the first meaning. The second meaning was not apparent to me because I do not explicitly know 5M nor AG's positions. I think that you were asking in the second meaning. You can tell that I was not answering in the second meaning because I did not address at all to 5M and AG's views, so my mix of the central ideas cannot be a my prediction of the outcome. On top of that, if I was answering in terms of the second meaning, why would I leave out the compromise for the Theme part?

Again, even though that was my prediction of the outcome, there is no justisfication based on that a schism is necessary. If that is a justisfication, isn't you the one opposing a compromise? In addition to that, I told you that you have misunderstood me. I explained to you, but you do not wish to listen. It is unbelievable that you can continue to misunderstand after I gave the Catholic example. Do you understand my position? Your first post on the schism is based on this misinterpretation. I have clarified it. Logically speaking, your justisfication is unsound even in your own reasoning (besides being unsound in terms of a collaborative effort).

I am not trying to make fun of s/s. I am speaking in a very matter of fact way, that I think that s/s had a goal she was trying to reach, and that post and the question before were used to stage a strategic move in order to achieve that goal.

AG's comments seem to direct more to what you did than to what I did regarding our recent actions. It just happens that this particular comment was written for me, not for you.

[Edited by - Estok on December 15, 2004 5:27:19 AM]

Speaking of misinterpretations

Quote:Central Idea:
Definition: The Central Ideas are the purposes and messages conveyed by a piece of writing.

Quote:This is exactly what premise is - the moral message the writer encodes in the story in an attempt to convince the reader of it. This message is encoded primarily in the story's problem and how the main character solves it.

This is true and I think it matches my view of what a central idea is. In general however, the purpose of the story does not necessary be to convince. To provoke thought, to amuse, and to depict are examples of equally valid central ideas. For example, the game story of a WWII strategy game can be simply depict the thoughts of a typical soldier on the western front. There is no deliberate message that the author trying to convey. The purpose is to depict, and that is a central idea of the story. I don't see how dramatica can answer how an author should proceed to select the purpose for a piece of writing. I can understand how Dramatica can relate a purpose to a set of suitable plot structures, But how does it choose the purpose to begin with?

Quote:In other words, the author portrays a person taking the right apporach and getting rewarded for it, or taking the wrong approach and getting punished for it, and thereby teaches the audience to take the right approach when presented with that type of problem.

This however is rather simplistic view of a central idea. Take Rashomon for example, the idea was to show how individuals cover up their flaws. The characters in the story are used to present the different versions of the incident. None of them were in an direct investigation or understanding on how individuals cover up. No one is really reward or punished for not reaching that understanding. A story does not need to be about the characters. I think that this still fits the saying that you are more concerned with the lines than the form. I think that you are niched in a specific type of stories and forms, and somehow you interpret everything based on that form alone. It is not intrinsically a bad thing. It just takes time to adjust to the wider scope.

What you originally posted

Quote:According to Dramatica, a story's premise[Central Idea] is a statement about how the main character solves or does not solve the story's problem.

was too narrow therefore I believed that there is a misunderstanding.