ParanetOnline
The Site => Site Suggestions & Support => Topic started by: Serack on May 01, 2012, 11:45:41 AM
-
This suggestion is a place for things like some of the DF spoilers stickies to live and otherwise be born and grow. The FAQ section would be a good spot for stuff like this if it were allowed to be dynamic, but since others can't contribute there, the most useful things there had to be moved over to spoilers.
One of the points of making a seperate home for these, is that ones that are deemed particularly significant can be saved from oblivion via the sticky function without cluttering up the main Spoilers discussion area.
Remember the topic built a year ago that listed every time there was a Soul Gaze? It would have been perfect for this section, but now it is gone. (I think I archived it on another computer though, I'll have to look later)
-
The question is how to avoid clutter. If folks are allowed to post there freely, what's to prevent this board from becoming functionally identical to the Spoilers/Books sections? If folks want to nominate certain threads for inclusion in the FAQ, that's awesome! Frankly, that's how it was designed to work. :D Folks come up with awesome things in the main boards, then the best bits are culled out and preserved under glass. Then if more awesome stuff on the same topic is generated on the main boards, a mod can merge it in.
We want to make sure the most brilliant and useful stuff is preserved, but we need the whole community to help us identify what that is.
-
The question is how to avoid clutter. If folks are allowed to post there freely, what's to prevent this board from becoming functionally identical to the Spoilers/Books sections? If folks want to nominate certain threads for inclusion in the FAQ, that's awesome! Frankly, that's how it was designed to work. :D Folks come up with awesome things in the main boards, then the best bits are culled out and preserved under glass. Then if more awesome stuff on the same topic is generated on the main boards, a mod can merge it in.
We want to make sure the most brilliant and useful stuff is preserved, but we need the whole community to help us identify what that is.
Well the FAQ is kind of off on it's own and lonely... And without member contributions, it kinda seems to stagnate... (and now has inertia towards this trend continuing IMO) Having it as a "child board" would kinda pyscologically make it more closely associated with the discussions in the spoilers. However I'm not confident of the best way to strike a happy medium between a behind glass museum that might be prone to stagnation and irrelivancy, and a dynamic discussion that might become functionally redundant to the other similar boards.
One possibility is to have a locked "child board" to move away from the FAQ's inactivity inertia, with multiple designated mods that actively suggest topics for porting (and ensure that they don't fall off the radar in the spoilers section) and then do whatever maintenance that might be necessary for presentation purposes. Maybe call them curators. My experience with my work on the WoJ section is that I can sometimes burn out and lose interest, letting some details go unfinished for a little while (I still have one GS release Q&A that I had missed in the latest big set of updates and have now been sitting on for over a month, and before that I spent quite a few months from August to Febuary mostly inactive) so having a number of people working in this capacity might be a good idea (and it is quite enjoyable to contribute in a capacity like this).
I have an image of a function of the "Curators" where they maintain a "significant theories" thread, and when a "Curator" sees a new theory that seems particularly significant contributed in the spoilers section, they say so, and suggest to the OP that they spend some time tightening up the wording and support and such for "preservation." Then the "Curator" either requests an admin type to port over the tightened up version into this new, under glass, topic or copies it over and gives credit kind of like I do with the transcriptions.
Similar with "lists" and other reference threads like the aformentioned list of soulgazes.
-
That's a really awesome idea! Bringing this to the other mods' attention.
-
Other "Curator" functions
After a new book is released, someone in the regular spoilers section might post a topic with new instances of X that has a topic in the "Reference" board, and one of the curator can copy over those instances into the topic under glass.
-
Some newish thoughts. If this idea were to come about, there are many popular theories and topics that have been discussed multiple times, and actually some of the best discussions have probably decayed and are gone.
I can forsee a flurry of new activity in the spoilers section where new topics are started dedicated to different posters trying to come up with their best version (both in supporting evidence, and in formatting) of various popular theories like "Simon is Cowl" and various versions of "X fixed LC"
Also, I know I am not the only person that archived some of their favorite posts before they got eaten by the autodelete monster (Although my hiatus for the back half of last year saw several of my favorites get consumed before I took the trouble :(), and those people might dredge up those old posts for revival too.
One other thing. This process might help shine a light on the members that show the most enthusiasm and proclavity for building well communicated, supported, and formatted theories. As such this might help determine who could be the best nominees for "Curators."
-
Some newish thoughts. If this idea were to come about, there are many popular theories and topics that have been discussed multiple times, and actually some of the best discussions have probably decayed and are gone.
Indeed! I personally lament not archiving some of the stuff I saw on forums years ago - being able to preserve future topics would be awesome.
A side thought -- does Fred perhaps have stale copies of the forum (say from 3 years ago) backuped to a hard-drive somewhere? If such a thing existed, I would be willing overjoyed to comb through it for old posts/Jim quotes, etc. and disseminate the information. I could probably also try to find a way to host it (with all the threads locked), or else a way to allow others to make their own local copies.
I can forsee a flurry of new activity in the spoilers section where new topics are started dedicated to different posters trying to come up with their best version (both in supporting evidence, and in formatting) of various popular theories like "Simon is Cowl" and various versions of "X fixed LC"
Also, I know I am not the only person that archived some of their favorite posts before they got eaten by the autodelete monster (Although my hiatus for the back half of last year saw several of my favorites get consumed before I took the trouble :(), and those people might dredge up those old posts for revival too.
{raises hand} I resemble that remark. ;)
One other thing. This process might help shine a light on the members that show the most enthusiasm and proclavity for building well communicated, supported, and formatted theories. As such this might help determine who could be the best nominees for "Curators."
Interesting idea. The only problem I foresee with this is kind of thing is that it looks like you need the child board (and the curators to run it) in order to run this type of competition in the first place. At the very least, you'd need someone to score the various submissions.
One possible way to organize would be as follows:
1) Open up a new child board to everyone on a trial basis for an entire month.
2) Let anyone submit a theory/list/resource. It must be well described, researched, readable, etc.
3) The only type of response allowed to such a thread would be a post with an alternative, complete re-write of the entire theory. Anything less would not be considered.
4) After the month trial period, someone (by vote, moderators, whatever) decides who gets to be a Curator.
- Obviously this is a lot of work so maybe one could make things simpler by just creating a thread for nominating existing posts/threads/users, or maybe by limiting the amount of posting in the new board to 3-5 submissions per person during the trial run.
-
Interesting idea. The only problem I foresee with this is kind of thing is that it looks like you need the child board (and the curators to run it) in order to run this type of competition in the first place. At the very least, you'd need someone to score the various submissions.
One possible way to organize would be as follows:
1) Open up a new child board to everyone on a trial basis for an entire month.
2) Let anyone submit a theory/list/resource. It must be well described, researched, readable, etc.
3) The only type of response allowed to such a thread would be a post with an alternative, complete re-write of the entire theory. Anything less would not be considered.
4) After the month trial period, someone (by vote, moderators, whatever) decides who gets to be a Curator.
- Obviously this is a lot of work so maybe one could make things simpler by just creating a thread for nominating existing posts/threads/users, or maybe by limiting the amount of posting in the new board to 3-5 submissions per person during the trial run.
The issue with this is that the administration seems to be genuinely and justifiably concerned that an open reference forum would overshadow/redundify the other discussion boards.
Most of those functions can be accomidated by the present spoilers section. Also, since the spoilers section is for discussion and because of how so many of these discussions go for reference like threads and good theories, several of the responses will inevitably be good suggestions for editing rather than complete reworks. Which makes complete sense, because if someone can think of a minor suggestion, why should they have to submit an entire new version to bring it up?
-
Maybe we could have a rule where members can't do a write-up of a thread/theory/whatevs less than a month old, to force the actual discussion and development of those ideas to stay in the Spoliers/Books sections?
-
Maybe we could have a rule where members can't do a write-up of a thread/theory/whatevs less than a month old, to force the actual discussion and development of those ideas to stay in the Spoliers/Books sections?
However, a good theory is one that people will want to contribute to and discuss. I can see the case for board antiredundancy. And someone might write a theory addressing who fixed LC from an overarching perspective, while someone else wants to post a more narrow Doylist analysis of the timeline. Two threads on LC in one month... Who decides that they are diverse enough to be allowed to be posted in the same month? I agree the earlier suggestions of letting them undergo discussion and mature in the spoilers section, then if they are demed to have enough gravity, port them over to behind the glass.
-
Hmm. I wonder if we can rig the new board so only Curators (and mods/admins) can create new threads there, but anyone can reply? Then as the discussion develops, the curator can modify his/her initial post to include the new ideas generated, so it remains definitive. No glass, but with a better signal to noise ratio than the Spoilers/Books fora? It may also be wise to ask that Curators not modify other Curators' topics without permission/approval, to protect their work. We can also create a hidden board that only the Curators (and mods/admins) can see, so they can privately discuss board organization and other Curator-y matters. Working together, they can keep redundancy at a minimum.
My only concern is that this may come across as elitist, having one person per topic charged with dictating what information is preserved and integrated into the main post. Proponents of less popular theories (or at least, theories that deviate from that Curator's vision) may feel sidelined. We want to make sure everyone feels heard.
I do like knnn's idea of allowing anyone to "audition" for Curatorship. I already have some folks I'd joyously deputize immediately, but I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to step up and contribute to the forum in an awesome way. Maybe in addition to the first batch of Curators, we can have a secondary member ranking of "Curator Candidate," who have two months to demonstrate their worthiness before being evaluated by the existing Curators and Mods.
-
Hmm. I wonder if we can rig the new board so only Curators (and mods/admins) can create new threads there, but anyone can reply? Then as the discussion develops, the curator can modify his/her initial post to include the new ideas generated, so it remains definitive. No glass, but with a better signal to noise ratio than the Spoilers/Books fora? It may also be wise to ask that Curators not modify other Curators' topics without permission/approval, to protect their work. We can also create a hidden board that only the Curators (and mods/admins) can see, so they can privately discuss board organization and other Curator-y matters. Working together, they can keep redundancy at a minimum.
My only concern is that this may come across as elitist, having one person per topic charged with dictating what information is preserved and integrated into the main post. Proponents of less popular theories (or at least, theories that deviate from that Curator's vision) may feel sidelined. We want to make sure everyone feels heard.
I do like knnn's idea of allowing anyone to "audition" for Curatorship. I already have some folks I'd joyously deputize immediately, but I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to step up and contribute to the forum in an awesome way. Maybe in addition to the first batch of Curators, we can have a secondary member ranking of "Curator Candidate," who have two months to demonstrate their worthiness before being evaluated by the existing Curators and Mods.
This model is much more accommodating for things like the timeline thread.
As for the elitist concerns, if the new "board" is locked from having new topics, but existing topics are fair game for new posts, then anyone in the regular spoilers section has the option of developing a well written and supported counter theory, garnering enthusiasm for it being worthy of becoming a reference, and requesting that it get ported over. This ported topic could then have its OP edited by its non curator originator, and gives an avenue for auditioning type stuff too.
Something to consider: I suggest a moratorium on new reference theories based on new material from early release sample chapters and maybe for a small time (a month?) after the release of a new novel. This allows for a measure of maturation of these theories in the normal spoilers section, keeps it a viable place for discussion, and helps keep transient theories from drowning out the long lived, more significant ones in the reference section, without having to worry as much about the initial winnowing being tainted by an elitist judgement call.
(sorry for the long time between responses, 15 hour drive after working 9 hours, concluded by the feverish onset of a cold... Great start to my vacation)
-
My main concern for allow anyone to post in "special" thread is that our posts tend to roam way off topic. Any such permanent threads may well become targets for such behavior and worse (obvious trolling and spam are easily culled, but I submit that it is not always obvious).
In any case, if the main issue here is the stagnation of the FAQ, we might be able to start with something smaller in scope:
Let's start a "theory of the week" thread in the DF spoilers section, where we invite specific people to post a theory (we might mandate it to specifically be not one of theirs to encourage impartiality), under some carefully designed format (citations, etc.), and let everybody comment on it for one week. The original author would then need to modify the post to accommodate everyone's alternatives, cite all constructive responses and submit it as a post in the FAQ (or some other "nearly-FAQ" board).
This way, we:
1) Continually get new material evolving in the FAQ. One new thread each week would contribute a single post (the modified OP) to the FAQ.
2) Encourage people to participate (both in constructive comments and in formulating the various theories). The chance to have your words (especially if your name is explicited cited) preserved "under glass" is a nice prize.
3) After the first few weeks, we might invite others to be the OP in the next "theory of the week" thread, or perhaps expand it to include other useful pieces of information (e.g. "minor things to note in Grave Peril", "Possible discrepancies", etc.)
---------
Later on down the line (assuming this endeavor is successful), these could be the seeds of the Curator board. At this point we could perhaps also run some polls, such as which theories to do next, who should be given a chance to do write up, whatever.
-
Revisiting this idea, and summarizing my concept of how something like this could work.
The title would be something like "Dresden Files Spoilers Reference collection"
Most of the reference style stickies in the Spoilers would be moved here but would not necessarily be stickies here.
Stickies that would be there are.
References and Theories Index
Nominate a Theory/Reference post for inclusion in this Archive
Help point out rampant derailment here (not confident on this one being a good idea)
If possible, anyone can post in this section, but only Curators (Local Mods) and admin types can start new topics. However, it is expected that many of the topics are going to be generated in and do some maturing in the regular Spoilers section and then get ported over via the nomination sticky => Admin action. This means that the OP will still have editing rights for their OP, which helps a lot for reference topic creators, and excessive pertying up editors like myself.
New idea:
We could even have something like a monthly poll (to be deleted afterwards maybe) that takes all the nominated and seconded theories for that month and allows X number of votes out of Y number of theories, allowing for wide participation in deciding what theories get ported, and ensuring that the initial discussion gets accomplished in the main discussion section. The nomination sticky might get locked the first month after a release, and the # of threads allowed in monthly might float some depending on the # of nominees.
Edit: For the first month or so of nominations we might have to have multiple category polls like Best LC theories, Best References, best GS born Theories...
Edit2: I'm really fleshing this out. Each time we do a poll/set of polls, a new nomination sticky gets generated, the previous one gets unstickied, edited to show the nominies polled and eventually the results, and the old polls are deleted relying on the old sticky to record their results.
One more thing:
There ought to be some mechanism that encourages actions like Elegast (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32267.msg1433473.html#msg1433473)'s where a good theory post with little/no format editing gets reworked without changing the theory, and the OP utilizes these efforts. I have a hard time expressing how excited I was to see such a great formatting rework of such a well put together theory.
-
There ought to be some mechanism that encourages actions like Elegast (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32267.msg1433473.html#msg1433473)'s where a good theory post with little/no format editing gets reworked without changing the theory, and the OP utilizes these efforts. I have a hard time expressing how excited I was to see such a great formatting rework of such a well put together theory.
In general, I am quite impressed with Elegast's efforts. He hasn't been on the forums long, yet he's done a very good job of foraging through the various theories (old and new) and putting his own spin on things. It's always interesting to read his posts.
Specifically regarding re-formatting - I very much agree. I'll go a step further and actually say that I would prefer a write-up from a different author (specifically not the originator of the theory - I personally find that I can get very defensive of my own theories, and have to work hard to remain impartial).
-
In general, I am quite impressed with Elegast's efforts. He hasn't been on the forums long, yet he's done a very good job of foraging through the various theories (old and new) and putting his own spin on things. It's always interesting to read his posts.
Specifically regarding re-formatting - I very much agree. I'll go a step further and actually say that I would prefer a write-up from a different author (specifically not the originator of the theory - I personally find that I can get very defensive of my own theories, and have to work hard to remain impartial).
Personally, I find a well edited theory is much easier to follow and appreciate than a block of text. Even better is one that includes chapter and WoJ references within the OP, but just the formatting is a big deal.
Edit: Also, I want to see the origonal theorizer's work archived because I want to see that their ego is stoked thus encouraging them to do more great theorizing/reference work.
That's right I actually had selfish motivations when I complimented your PG thread 8)
-
Personally, I find a well edited theory is much easier to follow and appreciate than a block of text. Even better is one that includes chapter and WoJ references within the OP, but just the formatting is a big deal.
Agreed. If this thing ever become reality, I would very much want to see a "suggested methods for formatting" sticky, complete with different colors for books quotes, WoJ's, etc.
Edit: Also, I want to see the origonal theorizer's work archived because I want to see that their ego is stoked thus encouraging them to do more great theorizing/reference work.
That's right I actually had selfish motivations when I complimented your PG thread 8)
I will admit to my ego having been stroked by that compliment, so I will give that. That said, I feel that prominent attribution of the theory (and proper representation of the details) would go quite a long way. I have no problem linking (or copy-pasting) the original post at the bottom.
............
Question:
If I started a "theory of the week" thread as I suggested above, would it be reasonable to expect that the re-formated OP of the thread (only the first post) would make it into the FAQ board to a TOW thread (assuming of course that it is informative enough and faithfully attributes all contributions)? I'm seriously considering trying this out for a couple of weeks to see how well it works, but wanted to have reasonable assurances that the final products would make it somewhere relatively permanent. If the answer is yes, I'd take some time to write up a few of the OPs in advance to have material for a few weeks.
Current theory list:
- Duck's "Mab fixed Chicago"
- Neuro's "Outsider Scarecrow" (probably at least referencing some of Elegast's combinations).
- Neuro's "Cowl never meant to do Darkhallow"
- "Mab's plan for SmF" - this one is mine, so I would try to get someone else to do it.
- "Molly abducted by Mab" - again, mine (it's almost a year old, so it will be deleted soon).
- Your Doyalist analysis of PG and the possible time-travel implications.
- HHWB summoning -- multiple.
- Lash's story (you plus a few others).
In addition, I thought I could use the thread to do something like "Theory building-blocks for XXX" for each of the books. Basically, it would be a chance for people to point out oddities/discrepancies/whatever that they noticed in their read-through that might help others come up with something.
Example:
Building blocks for GP would include things like (each with a short description of possible uses in a theory):
- Lea bargaining for Michael's son
- Lea burning Thomas with a kiss
- No Summer representative at Bianca's party
- What happened to Siriothrax's hoard?
- Bob knows how to find paths in the NN to Bianca's basement.
- The NN around Harry's apartment.
- The fabric of the NN is getting weaker (per Mort).
- Is Lydia's vision complete?
- Holy water burns Reds and ghouls (is this the only proof we have?)
This list in itself should generate enough weekly threads for the next few months. We could then either take each of the OPs for the "theories" FAQ thread, or use them as a whole as a seed for the new board.
-
This is all hypothetical right now.
In my current concept, even if I were to be given "Curator" duties, I might just use the same nomination process for my favorite "Lash" theory as everyone else. The idea hasn't completely crystallized, however, I am sure that there will be a decent volume of re-postings of old theories, and it is likely that a lot of them will be redundant.
So in this concept, if there were 7 other LC theories that got nominated within the first month, and they have a lot of overlap in the idea's they cover, but the differences are significant to justify more than X to be ported over, then we open a poll for LC topics giving X votes, and then letting the voters chose the X topics that should be ported over.
The Curators would be deciding the groupings, and what X is I guess.
Other Curator Duties would include nipping derailed convo's, maintaining the nomination sticky refresh process poll creation process, maintaining any resource threads they created, and end up getting ported over, and assisting in maintaining resource threads where the OP expresses willingness to let the curators play in his/her sand box. I can understand some possessiveness over some of these, I wouldn't dream of editing Prisc's timeline thread without explicit approval from her, and I was really worried about stepping on Tiracakes' toes when I created a new interview master list (This uneasiness was alleviated when I actually met her at the 2011 DC signing and found out that she was happy with my work :))
-
Okay, let's get this project rolling!
I'm going to poke Fred and request that the new boards be set up. In the most basic permissions terms:
The Dresden Files Spoilers Reference collection: (alternately, The Curated Theory Board?)
-- Either a sub-board of the Spoilers section or a board in the FAQ? I prefer putting it under FAQ.
-- Only curators (and mods) can create new topics. Anyone can post in these topics.
-- Curators can edit others' posts, split off OT posts to keep the threads pruned, merge threads, etc, though they may only edit posts with the OP's permission. This board will run on courtesy, respect, and constructive behavior. Abuse of these tools will result in loss of Curator status.
-- Threads do not expire
Sekrit Curator Discussion Forum:
-- Only visible to Mods and Curators. This is where they discuss sekrit curator schemes and plot to take over Quebec.
At the beginning, Serack and knnn will be our Curators. More Curators will be added over time as forumites prove themselves worthy of the honor.
Does that reflect your understanding of the basic board architecture? Can I send this on to Fred?
-
Okay, let's get this project rolling!
I'm going to poke Fred and request that the new boards be set up. In the most basic permissions terms:
The Dresden Files Spoilers Reference collection: (alternately, The Curated Theory Board?)
If it isn't limited to DF, we need to dragoon M.E. I always envisioned this being a good home for things like the timeline, which isn't exactly a "Theory" but what I would call a "Reference"
-- Either a sub-board of the Spoilers section or a board in the FAQ? I prefer putting it under FAQ.
I'm cool with it being in the FAQ section. Maybe it could supplant the current spoilers FAQ.
-- Only curators (and mods) can create new topics. Anyone can post in these topics.
I suppose we could work out these kinds of details between topics on taking over Quebec, but will the Admin's be supportive of porting over topics from the Spoilers section?
-- Curators can edit others' posts, split off OT posts to keep the threads pruned, merge threads, etc, though they may only edit posts with the OP's permission. This board will run on courtesy, respect, and constructive behavior. Abuse of these tools will result in loss of Curator status.
-- Threads do not expire
Sekrit Curator Discussion Forum:
-- Only visible to Mods and Curators. This is where they discuss sekrit curator schemes and plot to take over Quebec.
At the beginning, Serack and knnn will be our Curators. More Curators will be added over time as forumites prove themselves worthy of the honor.
Does that reflect your understanding of the basic board architecture? Can I send this on to Fred?
Architecture yah, although there are plenty of details that can probably be hashed skemed out after it gets created when it comes to managing it. Maybe port this topic over there after that section is created.
-
If it isn't limited to DF, we need to dragoon M.E. I always envisioned this being a good home for things like the timeline, which isn't exactly a "Theory" but what I would call a "Reference"
When I pitched the idea to the Mods and Bartenders, he said he wouldn't have time to contribute, but who are we kidding? M.E. totally gets Curator status, even if he never uses it. Because he will use it. It is his nature. :D
And yeah, probably best to indicate the series, so we can keep any Alera reference topics separate from any Steampunk reference topics, when the time comes. "DF Spoilers Reference Collection" works!
I'm cool with it being in the FAQ section. Maybe it could supplant the current spoilers FAQ.
Heck yeah. The current spoilers FAQ is pretty anemic and sad.
I suppose we could work out these kinds of details between topics on taking over Quebec, but will the Admin's be supportive of porting over topics from the Spoilers section?
Yep. That's how you're running WOJ right now, right? Mods or Admins port topics from Spoilers, then Curators work their sexy magic.
-
Um. There is more than one post (Here's an example (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26853.msg1143979.html#msg1143979)) that was posted in the ramp up to the GS release that are due for autodelete, that I strongly want to nominate for archival in this section...
Time is becoming a factor.
-
Um. There is more than one post (Here's an example (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26853.msg1143979.html#msg1143979)) that was posted in the ramp up to the GS release that are due for autodelete, that I strongly want to nominate for archival in this section...
Time is becoming a factor.
Thanks for the warning. I've moved it to the Display Case in the Bar for the time being. When the new board is created, I'll move it there, so the Curators can properly enshrine it. I have a map for Myke Cole due tomorrow, and it's been eating all my brainspace. :D
What are some of the other saveworthy, at-risk-for-deletion topics?
-
Thanks for the warning. I've moved it to the Display Case in the Bar for the time being. When the new board is created, I'll move it there, so the Curators can properly enshrine it. I have a map for Myke Cole due tomorrow, and it's been eating all my brainspace. :D
What are some of the other saveworthy, at-risk-for-deletion topics?
There are some of Serack's coming up (next month or so), though I think he has archived at least the OP himself.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27028.0.html - A list of times Harry heard voices in his head.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27090.0.html - Lash theory
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27267.0.html - Specualtion on Demonreach
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26613.0.html - List of powerups
-
There are some of Serack's coming up (next month or so), though I think he has archived at least the OP himself.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27028.0.html - A list of times Harry heard voices in his head.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27090.0.html - Lash theory
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27267.0.html - Specualtion on Demonreach
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26613.0.html - List of powerups
Wow I had forgotten that I had written that voices topic. I actually started a much more thorough version during my latest reread earlier this year... if that one gets archived I might do some serious revision.
That Powerups topic was a lot of fun to write and organize.
-
Wow I had forgotten that I had written that voices topic. I actually started a much more thorough version during my latest reread earlier this year... if that one gets archived I might do some serious revision.
That Powerups topic was a lot of fun to write and organize.
Temporarily moved to the Display Case! Thanks!
-
I went looking and found a few theories that are due to expire in a month or less:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26893.0/topicseen.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26905.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26888.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26976.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27034.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27096.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26872.0.html
I don't think there are any duplicates with what has already been posted. I just went looking for any old threads I could find that the OP postulated a theory with any sort of references to the books for evidence.
I leave it to the curators to decide if any of them have merit.
-
I went looking and found a few theories that are due to expire in a month or less:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26893.0/topicseen.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26905.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26888.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26976.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27034.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27096.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26872.0.html
I don't think there are any duplicates with what has already been posted. I just went looking for any old threads I could find that the OP postulated a theory with any sort of references to the books for evidence.
I leave it to the curators to decide if any of them have merit.
Thanks! Serack and knnn, what say you?
-
I went looking and found a few theories that are due to expire in a month or less:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26893.0/topicseen.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26905.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26888.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26976.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27034.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27096.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26872.0.html
I don't think there are any duplicates with what has already been posted. I just went looking for any old threads I could find that the OP postulated a theory with any sort of references to the books for evidence.
I leave it to the curators to decide if any of them have merit.
Thanks! Serack and knnn, what say you?
I'm looking through them. I will comment on these as topics that should be shelved to avoid their autodeletion until we set up the official process to decide if they belong in the reference section.
I think most might be worth shelving until we can sift them through the eventual "official process." Criteria I am giving weight to are:
- The OP actually making interesting/supported conclusions (Theories) that invoke discussion. T
- The OP consolidating enough info about the intended subject to make the topic a good reference for others that might want to make conclusions (R)
- Formatting (F)
- Discussion in follow up posts (D)
Actually, this just got me thinking. When this reference board is born, I expect there to be an index sticky. Incorporated into the index, there could be a brief review of each theory done by the curators (possibly with input from anyone else) along these lines: 6T, 4R, 4F, 2D Where the number is a scale from 1 to 10 and T, R, F, and D are described above. We could even have multiple curator reviews on the same topic that are color coded based on which curator contributed them (or if they are croud sourced, which could also have an incorporated link to the source). This might even encourage OP's to increase their Formatting score, or allow others to contribute formating edits that they incorporate. The "D" score is intended to let a potential viewer know how important following up on the pages of discussion might be. Curators might add links to the end of the OP to significant posts in the replies section.
It should be mentioned that many great OP's that deserve to be in the reference section will have either a low "T score" or "R score" by their very nature.
Origins of the Three Eye drug. (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26893.0.html) 3T, 1R, 1F, ?D
Harry and chaos (Spoilers plus a theory) (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26905.0.html) 3T, 5R, 5F, 2?D
Who told Monica Sells? (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26888.0.html) 5T, 4R, 4F, 5?D
Timeline for Changes (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26976.0.html) 1T, 6R, 4F, 1D
Topics that you think are a /big deal/ (reference thread) (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27034.0.html) most of these links are dead. don't archive this, I have what I need from it already archived (It's my topic).
The Answer(hopefully) to Who Fixed Little Chicago (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27096.0.html) Archive this! I'll review it later.
Discontinuity = clue? [GS sample ch spoilers] (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26872.msg1145001.html#msg1145001) This has lost a lot of it's significance post GS release. I will probably personally archive it tomorrow, with the intent of possibly making a seperate reference topic of all the identified apparent "discontinuities" as long as I can do it in a way that doesn't set Shecky off like a yipping lap dog (tall order).
TYVM EMcB for doing this. I started doing this but got distracted by the urge to rewrite the Mouse Origin topic (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32720.0.html), and to write a topic (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32721.0.html) encouraging actions like yours and encourage others to make new/revised theory/reference topics.
-
Serack, you are amazing.
Temporarily shelving all indicated threads in the Display Case.
-
Agreed. If this thing ever become reality, I would very much want to see a "suggested methods for formatting" sticky, complete with different colors for books quotes, WoJ's, etc.
I will admit to my ego having been stroked by that compliment, so I will give that. That said, I feel that prominent attribution of the theory (and proper representation of the details) would go quite a long way. I have no problem linking (or copy-pasting) the original post at the bottom.
............
Question:
If I started a "theory of the week" thread as I suggested above, would it be reasonable to expect that the re-formated OP of the thread (only the first post) would make it into the FAQ board to a TOW thread (assuming of course that it is informative enough and faithfully attributes all contributions)? I'm seriously considering trying this out for a couple of weeks to see how well it works, but wanted to have reasonable assurances that the final products would make it somewhere relatively permanent. If the answer is yes, I'd take some time to write up a few of the OPs in advance to have material for a few weeks.
Current theory list:
- Duck's "Mab fixed Chicago"
- Neuro's "Outsider Scarecrow" (probably at least referencing some of Elegast's combinations).
- Neuro's "Cowl never meant to do Darkhallow"
- "Mab's plan for SmF" - this one is mine, so I would try to get someone else to do it.
- "Molly abducted by Mab" - again, mine (it's almost a year old, so it will be deleted soon).
- Your Doyalist analysis of PG and the possible time-travel implications.
- HHWB summoning -- multiple.
- Lash's story (you plus a few others).
In addition, I thought I could use the thread to do something like "Theory building-blocks for XXX" for each of the books. Basically, it would be a chance for people to point out oddities/discrepancies/whatever that they noticed in their read-through that might help others come up with something.
Example:
Building blocks for GP would include things like (each with a short description of possible uses in a theory):
- Lea bargaining for Michael's son
- Lea burning Thomas with a kiss
- No Summer representative at Bianca's party
- What happened to Siriothrax's hoard?
- Bob knows how to find paths in the NN to Bianca's basement.
- The NN around Harry's apartment.
- The fabric of the NN is getting weaker (per Mort).
- Is Lydia's vision complete?
- Holy water burns Reds and ghouls (is this the only proof we have?)
This list in itself should generate enough weekly threads for the next few months. We could then either take each of the OPs for the "theories" FAQ thread, or use them as a whole as a seed for the new board.
Note to self:
At some point I would like to start a reference topic named something like "Power Scales and Ascension rituals"
Reference material for this topic could easily be sourced from here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1326451.html#msg1326451
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1326478.html#msg1326478
DFRPG's list (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1327282.html#msg1327282)
-
Note to self:
At some point I would like to start a reference topic named something like "Power Scales and Ascension rituals"
Reference material for this topic could easily be sourced from here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1326451.html#msg1326451
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1326478.html#msg1326478
DFRPG's list (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1327282.html#msg1327282)
GK and someone else who I forgot were doing some power scale things earlier, which might be interesting to check out. It was all very mathematical. Integrals were being deployed. :)
Also, has anyone tried to write a little computer app or something to keep things straight? I don't know how hard this would be, but having a sub-website-thing hosting stuff like a power calculator or a database of theories that would be searchable/sortable would be really, really awesome.
-
Huh. I just sent a PM to
GK asking Griffyn612 if he wanted to redo that topic for us too :)
-
Note to self:
At some point I would like to start a reference topic named something like "Power Scales and Ascension rituals"
Reference material for this topic could easily be sourced from here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1326451.html#msg1326451
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1326478.html#msg1326478
DFRPG's list (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31168.msg1327282.html#msg1327282)
we had one for a while that I recall, the problem to redo it is it was based on 'kill a Mab's' as in whou could or coudl not take on Mab in a oine on one fight.
Thing is, there is a major discreapancy between the books and wjo as to how strong Mab is these days- the Books have her being uriel's near equal, where woj implies Uriel is much, much stronger.
(and there another one for your discrepancies list.)
lol
-
Jim has said that originally he wanted Harry to be a medium sized fish in a big pond, but as he wrote the series he decided to make the pond a little bigger. All the better to make Harry's life difficult.
I suspect that the difference between that one line in SK comparing Mab to archangels (which has lots of wiggle room, so it kinda baffles me that you get so stuck on it) and the way things seem to lie now might be a consequence of that expansion of the pond.
Edit: Here's a WoJ where Jim says that stuff about ponds:
Mainly I just stick to the plan I always had for Dresden: I never wanted him to be the big fish in the pond. I always wanted him to be the crafty medium-sized fish, somebody who could rely on brute power for some problems, but not nearly all of them. Then, as I kept on creating the world I needed, I realized that Dresden wasn't even really a medium-sized fish. He was smaller than that. Granted, he has a lot of muscle for most of the world he runs around in, but when times get hard he starts finding himself going up against all kinds of guys who are really just out of his weight class.
source (http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Explorations-The-BN-SciFi-and/Believe-the-Hype-Benedict-Jacka-Author-of-Fated-is-the-Next/ba-p/1300917)
-
I remember working on another power scale calculation thread a while ago, which calculated not only raw power but things like cleverness, connections/alliances, limitations, and territorial advantages. So it ended up being closer to a danger scale instead of power, along the lines of "it's safer to piss off Mother Winter than Lara, because Mother Winter (probably) can't directly do anything to you, despite being way stronger than Lara".
In any case, though, any power scale calculator would have to have error bars implemented, and I suspect they'd be large enough that any comparison between reasonably similar-tier characters (as in, not Butters vs. Ferrovax) would have overlapping error bars, and so the scheme would be very rough regardless.
-
We are go for launch! Let me know if I screwed up the setup in any way. It was my first time futzing with the forum's infrastructure. :D
-
GK and someone else who I forgot were doing some power scale things earlier, which might be interesting to check out. It was all very mathematical. Integrals were being deployed. :)
Also, has anyone tried to write a little computer app or something to keep things straight? I don't know how hard this would be, but having a sub-website-thing hosting stuff like a power calculator or a database of theories that would be searchable/sortable would be really, really awesome.
Me :)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33165.msg1495697.html#msg1495697 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33165.msg1495697.html#msg1495697)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33165.msg1497543.html#msg1497543 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33165.msg1497543.html#msg1497543)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33165.msg1497609.html#msg1497609 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33165.msg1497609.html#msg1497609)
at some point im going to graph it out.. the idea is to take the 'who can kill mab' caluclations and then groudn it in real world equivalents of things we have seen people do. For example, How much power does it take to create a blizzard?
or blow up a house with lightning?.. or..destroy jupiter?
-
I have noticed recently that Serack's awesome lsit is kinda bleeding out as the threads the WOJs are in auto delete themselves.
for example:
this link about maggie sr is now dead (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26661.msg1138577.html#msg1138577)
my sugestion: a master WOJ list, which includes not links but the actual citations, and that this be included in your permanent refernce board.
-
I have noticed recently that Serack's awesome lsit is kinda bleeding out as the threads the WOJs are in auto delete themselves.
for example:
this link about maggie sr is now dead (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26661.msg1138577.html#msg1138577)
my sugestion: a master WOJ list, which includes not links but the actual citations, and that this be included in your permanent refernce board.
Any threads containing WOJ should have been moved to the WOJ board, where threads aren't purged. Looks like this one slipped through our fingers. If you see any more, please let us know!
-
I have noticed recently that Serack's awesome lsit is kinda bleeding out as the threads the WOJs are in auto delete themselves.
for example:
this link about maggie sr is now dead (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26661.msg1138577.html#msg1138577)
my sugestion: a master WOJ list, which includes not links but the actual citations, and that this be included in your permanent refernce board.
Ack.
I was looking for that one the other day too.