bluegargantua

Is it okay to fill out a phantom entry you created? Or is that verbotten?

From:

That's verboten.

From:

bluegargantua

It's also not allowed.

later
Tom

From:

desiringsubject.livejournal.com

oh! *didn't get that*

From:

desiringsubject.livejournal.com

It makes me sad 'cause there's one thing I created *specifically because* I thought it'd be fun to write about. I didn't know you had to save all your best ideas until their letter came around! *pouts slightly*

From:

I noticed two of mikecap's entries point to the same phantom.

Hardwood smuggling and Fardur Urquardo both cite Valexian Pirates.

I can see how this would all be very difficult to keep consistent with more players and more entries.

From:

You can point to the same phantom as many times as you want (though it's arguably poor practice) but you can't write a phantom you created.

From:

Why is it arguably poor practice?

From:

The goal of the Lexicon game being to mix a bunch of people's ideas, if many entries all end up citing the same few phantoms, some of that intermingling is lost. It's inevitable that some phantoms will catch more people's interest than others, and that phantoms created later will have fewer citations, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try for a broad spread of citations.

From:

Well, mixing ideas is one goal to be sure. But having consistent and coherent paths in a unified story structure is surely another. Citing entries that it makes sense to cite in the context of a particular entry strengthens the overarching story. Honestly, if someone else had made another pirate entry I probably would have referred to that one instead for an article about smuggled goods.

From:

There's a reason I said it was arguably bad practice. There are always exceptions.

From:

Hence an argument. I did ask for it after all, I just wanted to know what it was. :)

Lore is right about wikis!

From:

OMG. *dead from funny*

From:

Well, mixing ideas is one goal to be sure. But having consistent and coherent paths in a unified story structure is surely another.

The article itself can have linked references to any number of other entries, without actually citing them, right? Wouldn't that meet your requirements for maintaining a consistent path while still allowing for the creation of two unique phantoms?

From:

Well, I could have created two more unique phantoms, but I actually wanted to give other people the chance to define later phantom entries because I'd rather see what other people come up with and link in with their stuff in later entries.

I suppose I could even have created another pirate entry and then linked in the Valexians as an additional reference in the same article too. But I actually enjoy the challenge of tying other people's phantoms together in the final rounds more than making up the blank entries that they have to fill in.

From:

Well, I could have created two more unique phantoms, but I actually wanted to give other people the chance to define later phantom entries because I'd rather see what other people come up with and link in with their stuff in later entries.

Groovy. I'm new to whole Lexicon thing so I'm still trying to get my head around some aspects. ;-)

Definitely fun though, I wouldn't mind doing more of these.

From:

I was thinking it would be really super awesome to do one of the following:

Conan-style prehistoric lexicon
"Long ago, West of the lands of the lost civilization of Wu..."

Film Noir/Sin City/murder mystery lexicon
"The body of Henry O'Connor was found in an alley on Bleecker Street. Multiple stab wounds to the chest, and two gunshot wounds to the head."

And then subsequent entries would reveal clues or facts about the circumstances of the case, but no one would be able to "solve" the murder in any one entry.

From: