[PW!] [META] Wording for the New Rules

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

The last META discussion left us with three rules that required a change or
clarification in wording. In this poll, please specify which wording you
prefer for the three unclear rules from the last poll. If you don't like any
of the wordings and don't want the rule in any of its forms, you can vote
for "none".

1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:

a) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the author must write a
story that settles the character, duo, group, or location. It's up to the
author to decide how to settle the Writer's Guide, but if the author tries
to retire the WG without settling it first, the retirement will not be
valid.

b) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the members of the
Pokewars! must vote on whether to allow the retirement or not.

c) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide that's less than a year
old, the members of the Pokewars! must vote on whether to allow the
retirement or not. If the Writer's Guide is more than a year old, the author
may retire it without conducting a poll.

2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:

a) PW! story posts must contain a character with a Writer's Guide,
regardless of whether the character belongs to the author or not.

b) PW! story posts must contain a character with a Writer's Guide that
belongs to the author writing the post.

c) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
character's Pokemon), regardless of whether the WG belongs to the author or
not.

d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.

3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:

a) There are to be no hybrid pokemon. IE no half Lugia/half Fearow Pokemon
for the intention of getting around the Legendaries rule, for example.

b) Adding the emphasized part to the current Pokemon limitations in the FAQ:
"These pokemon CANNOT be captured, cannot be your trainer, cannot be cloned
or killed, you cannot get their babies, *your Pokemon cannot possess
attributes of these Pokemon, or learn the moves that are unique to these
Pokemon*... well, you get the idea."

c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to an
extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other, although
there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both parents
(as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but these
creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).

-Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

>c) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide that's less than a year
>old, the members of the Pokewars! must vote on whether to allow the
>retirement or not. If the Writer's Guide is more than a year old, the author
>may retire it without conducting a poll.

Agreed.

>d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
>be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
>character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.

Also agreed.

>c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
>pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to an
>extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other, although
>there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both parents
>(as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but these
>creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
>captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
>tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).
>

Ditto.


William Rendfeld
Creator of Echowarrior and Alex Masters
178,000 Excellent Author Points
1 'I knew odd pokefacts that confused a bread crumb' point.
20 Y2Tech Points

 

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

Rob wrote:

> 1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:
>
> a) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the author must write a
> story that settles the character, duo, group, or location. It's up to the
> author to decide how to settle the Writer's Guide, but if the author tries
> to retire the WG without settling it first, the retirement will not be
> valid.

Since the whole reason this issue was brought up was so that characters
would settle/retire/kill their characters in the PW! continuity when they
retire WGs, I vote for this option. It prevents the newsgroup clutter that
would arise from voting on whether authors can retire their characters or
not. Plus, I think authors should be able to retire their characters
whenever they want. If one author is retiring characters left and right and
replacing them with new ones, then that person can be warned on the grounds
that he or she is trying to get around the spirit of the "only four WGed
characters at a time" rule using a technicality.

> 2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:

> b) PW! story posts must contain a character with a Writer's Guide that
> belongs to the author writing the post.

While I used to like this practice the most when I used to archive posts
manually...

> d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether
it
> be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.

I'll vote for this one. It doesn't mean I'll start writing posts that don't
feature my own WGed characters, but I like allowing other PW! authors the
option to do so if they wish. However, I do think it's important an author
features SOME element of one of his or her WGs in each of his or her
stories. Also, the "duos cannot be separated" rule already passed, so one
can't make the "element" argument with a duo's WG to separate the duo for
extended periods of time.

> 3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:

> b) Adding the emphasized part to the current Pokemon limitations in the
FAQ:
> "These pokemon CANNOT be captured, cannot be your trainer, cannot be
cloned
> or killed, you cannot get their babies, *your Pokemon cannot possess
> attributes of these Pokemon, or learn the moves that are unique to these
> Pokemon*... well, you get the idea."

I vote for this option. I consider it the best wording since it makes room
for human/Pokemon hybrids and prevents Pokemon like Sureswift2 from being
created.

-Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAwqc.20733$KE6.11424@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:
>
> a) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the author must write a
> story that settles the character, duo, group, or location. It's up to the
> author to decide how to settle the Writer's Guide, but if the author tries
> to retire the WG without settling it first, the retirement will not be
> valid.

"I VOTE FOR OPTION A!" said Steffan, in the third person for some reason.

> 2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
>
> b) PW! story posts must contain a character with a Writer's Guide that
> belongs to the author writing the post.

I vote for this one, although it may be worth considering whether you're
allowed to write a post where the only WGed element is a location.

> d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether
it
> be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.

However, if this one gets the majority vote, I'd like to ensure that it
clarifies that one member of a duo does not come under the "it's an element"
loophole - that is, I can't write about Diego alone just because he's part
of the Lauren and Diego WG.

> 3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:
>
> b) Adding the emphasized part to the current Pokemon limitations in the
FAQ:
> "These pokemon CANNOT be captured, cannot be your trainer, cannot be
cloned
> or killed, you cannot get their babies, *your Pokemon cannot possess
> attributes of these Pokemon, or learn the moves that are unique to these
> Pokemon*... well, you get the idea."

Option B! I choose YOU!

It's tempting to suggest expanding this to ALL Pokémon with unique moves.
Although it'd throw a spanner in the works of my plan to make Nomak learn
Transform...

Steffan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

>1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:
>
>a) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the author must write a
>story that settles the character, duo, group, or location. It's up to the
>author to decide how to settle the Writer's Guide, but if the author tries
>to retire the WG without settling it first, the retirement will not be
>valid.

Vote yes.

>2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
>
>d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
>be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
>character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.
>

Vote yes.

>3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:
>
>
>c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
>pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to an
>extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other, although
>there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both parents
>(as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but these
>creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
>captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
>tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).

Vote yes.



Jose L. Solano
-------------------------------
A devious, degenerate defender of the devil
-------------------------------
"It's too damn safe."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

Yay! The last post was to big and complicated for me...

> a) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the author must write a
> story that settles the character, duo, group, or location. It's up to the
> author to decide how to settle the Writer's Guide, but if the author tries
> to retire the WG without settling it first, the retirement will not be
> valid.

This sounds best to me, with no uneccesary vote posts clogging up the works.

> c) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
> be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> character's Pokemon), regardless of whether the WG belongs to the author or
> not.

This one for me.

> c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
> pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to an
> extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other, although
> there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both parents
> (as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but these
> creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
> captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
> tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).

Although I don't understand all the long words, 0_o this one sounds best
to me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ZAwqc.20733$KE6.11424@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> The last META discussion left us with three rules that required a change or
> clarification in wording. In this poll, please specify which wording you
> prefer for the three unclear rules from the last poll. If you don't like any
> of the wordings and don't want the rule in any of its forms, you can vote
> for "none".
>
> 1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:
>
> a) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the author must write a
> story that settles the character, duo, group, or location. It's up to the
> author to decide how to settle the Writer's Guide, but if the author tries
> to retire the WG without settling it first, the retirement will not be
> valid.

I vote for this one. Reason: Asking for one final story to settle the
character isn't too much to ask, but forcing someone to keep writing
for a character they don't want just doesn't wash with me. I know
you're worried about author's going through characters like potato
chips, but I'd prefer that to an author that posted stories that
didn't interest them, and who made little attempt at interacting,
which would be the result of forcing an author to keep writing.

> 2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
>
> c) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
> be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> character's Pokemon), regardless of whether the WG belongs to the author or
> not.

This one. I think the only limit that should be placed on PW! posts is
that it involves a specific part of the PW! universe.

> 3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:
>
> c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
> pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to an
> extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other, although
> there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both parents
> (as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but these
> creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
> captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
> tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).

Wish I'd gotten into the discussion sooner, but I'll throw in my two
cents here, and you can ignore it if you wish. I'm probably biased on
this, but the human/pokemon hybrids that were around for a while, some
of which are still at large (Amber, Bob, Kistu, Keaton...) seemed to
add a nice touch to the stories, and the authors handled them well. I
can understand the point of preventing hybrid pokemon...PW! would
eventually become each author's personal fanfic with their own
personal pokemon. So...perhaps only if the hybrid was only used in the
creative sense of the story. Not to assist the trainer, or to send
into battle.

--Marco262
The long-winded, and probably redundant, ferret

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> 1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:

> c) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide that's less than a year
> old, the members of the Pokewars! must vote on whether to allow the
> retirement or not. If the Writer's Guide is more than a year old, the author
> may retire it without conducting a poll.

> 2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:

> c) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
> be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> character's Pokemon), regardless of whether the WG belongs to the author or
> not.

> 3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:

> c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
> pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to an
> extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other, although
> there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both parents
> (as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but these
> creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
> captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
> tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).

For reasons stated earlier. 1a is tempting, but there are certain
potentially useful plot devices that would exlcude.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ZAwqc.20733$KE6.11424@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> The last META discussion left us with three rules that required a change or
> clarification in wording. In this poll, please specify which wording you
> prefer for the three unclear rules from the last poll. If you don't like any
> of the wordings and don't want the rule in any of its forms, you can vote
> for "none".
>
> 1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:
>
> a) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the author must write a
> story that settles the character, duo, group, or location. It's up to the
> author to decide how to settle the Writer's Guide, but if the author tries
> to retire the WG without settling it first, the retirement will not be
> valid.

I still have mixed feelings about this rule in any form. This version
seems reasonable enough, but I worry that if authors are forced to
write stories about characters they don't like--even if the stories
are just settling posts--they may become frustrated and decide to stop
writing altogether. Also, different people are going to have
different ideas about what constitutes a "settled" character. This is
going to invite arguments. I think the only condition for retiring a
Writer's Guide should be that the character can't be interacting at
the time of retirement.

> 2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
>
> d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
> be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.
>

This gives authors the maximum amount of freedom while still keeping
with the spirit of the PW! With this wording, Clayton can do a
Sabrina setup post that mentions Bob, but doesn't physically include
him, Tech can add input to Search Party stories that don't include
Kitsu and Keaton, and authors who have location WGs can write flavor
posts about their locations. However, authors won't be able to
randomly redirect the flow of stories that their characters aren't
involved in. (In other words, no godmoding.)

> 3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:
>
> b) Adding the emphasized part to the current Pokemon limitations in the FAQ:
> "These pokemon CANNOT be captured, cannot be your trainer, cannot be cloned
> or killed, you cannot get their babies, *your Pokemon cannot possess
> attributes of these Pokemon, or learn the moves that are unique to these
> Pokemon*... well, you get the idea."
>
> c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
> pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to an
> extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other, although
> there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both parents
> (as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but these
> creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
> captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
> tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).

These are really two different rules, one closing a potential loophole
in the Legendary restriction, and one explaining the limits of hybrid
abilities in general. I see no reason not to include both rules in
the updated FAQ.


--Beth

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

Bandraptor wrote:
> "Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ZAwqc.20733$KE6.11424@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>>2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
>>
>>d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide (whether it
>>be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
>>character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.
>
> This gives authors the maximum amount of freedom while still keeping
> with the spirit of the PW! With this wording, Clayton can do a
> Sabrina setup post that mentions Bob, but doesn't physically include
> him,

Actually, the way I read that rule, he couldn't. Mentioning Bob is not
including him.

> Tech can add input to Search Party stories that don't include
> Kitsu and Keaton, and authors who have location WGs can write flavor
> posts about their locations. However, authors won't be able to
> randomly redirect the flow of stories that their characters aren't
> involved in. (In other words, no godmoding.)

I thought "godmoding" referred to unbeatable-type characters, not
whether one owned the written characters. (Character ownership itself
is iffy in a few of the media the term is used with.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Adrian Tymes" <wingcat@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Wm5rc.51586$MT7.236@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Bandraptor wrote:
> > "Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<ZAwqc.20733$KE6.11424@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >>2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
> >>
> >>d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide
(whether it
> >>be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> >>character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.
> >
> > This gives authors the maximum amount of freedom while still keeping
> > with the spirit of the PW! With this wording, Clayton can do a
> > Sabrina setup post that mentions Bob, but doesn't physically include
> > him,
>
> Actually, the way I read that rule, he couldn't. Mentioning Bob is not
> including him.
>
> > Tech can add input to Search Party stories that don't include
> > Kitsu and Keaton, and authors who have location WGs can write flavor
> > posts about their locations. However, authors won't be able to
> > randomly redirect the flow of stories that their characters aren't
> > involved in. (In other words, no godmoding.)
>
> I thought "godmoding" referred to unbeatable-type characters, not
> whether one owned the written characters. (Character ownership itself
> is iffy in a few of the media the term is used with.)
>

When Beth is saying that, I think she's assuming that the author would only
be writing in other peoples' stories to help his/her own character. Harder
to make any objective rules against it this way...because the author could
either be writing a good story or godmoding, depending. It might be good to
add a footnote that it's good practice to write stories only with your own
characters, unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise.

--Marco262, your humble neighborhood ferret

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Marco262" <marco262@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:c8it81$19dm$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
>
> "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Wm5rc.51586$MT7.236@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > Bandraptor wrote:
> > > "Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<ZAwqc.20733$KE6.11424@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > >>2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
> > >>
> > >>d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide
> (whether it
> > >>be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> > >>character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.
> > >
> > > This gives authors the maximum amount of freedom while still keeping
> > > with the spirit of the PW! With this wording, Clayton can do a
> > > Sabrina setup post that mentions Bob, but doesn't physically include
> > > him,
> >
> > Actually, the way I read that rule, he couldn't. Mentioning Bob is not
> > including him.


Ah. I'm reading the rule as, "some element of the story must focus on a
character/Pokemon/location/NPC that's mentioned in a Writer's Guide."
You're reading it as, "each story must feature an Element, such as a
character/Pokemon/location/NPC, that's mentioned in a Writer's Guide." Rob,
Dread, which interpretation is correct? If it is the latter, I'd like to
switch my vote to option 'c'.


> >
> > > Tech can add input to Search Party stories that don't include
> > > Kitsu and Keaton, and authors who have location WGs can write flavor
> > > posts about their locations. However, authors won't be able to
> > > randomly redirect the flow of stories that their characters aren't
> > > involved in. (In other words, no godmoding.)
> >
> > I thought "godmoding" referred to unbeatable-type characters, not
> > whether one owned the written characters. (Character ownership itself
> > is iffy in a few of the media the term is used with.)
> >
>
> When Beth is saying that, I think she's assuming that the author would
only
> be writing in other peoples' stories to help his/her own character.


Yes, that was my concern. I don't think that anyone who's currently writing
would do this, but the FAQ is written with a worst case scenario in mind.


> It might be good to
> add a footnote that it's good practice to write stories only with your own
> characters, unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise.


Should option 'c' win out, I think that would be worth adding.


--Beth

 

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Bandraptor" <bandraptor@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XMarc.305$PU5.8@fed1read06...

> > > >>d) PW! story posts must contain some element of a Writer's Guide
> > (whether it
> > > >>be a character, a location, a group, NPCs mentioned in the WG, or a
> > > >>character's Pokemon) that belongs to the author writing the post.
> > > >
> > > > This gives authors the maximum amount of freedom while still keeping
> > > > with the spirit of the PW! With this wording, Clayton can do a
> > > > Sabrina setup post that mentions Bob, but doesn't physically include
> > > > him,
> > >
> > > Actually, the way I read that rule, he couldn't. Mentioning Bob is
not
> > > including him.
>
> Ah. I'm reading the rule as, "some element of the story must focus on a
> character/Pokemon/location/NPC that's mentioned in a Writer's Guide."
> You're reading it as, "each story must feature an Element, such as a
> character/Pokemon/location/NPC, that's mentioned in a Writer's Guide."
Rob,
> Dread, which interpretation is correct? If it is the latter, I'd like to
> switch my vote to option 'c'.

The name of the character could arguably be an "element" of the Writer's
Guide, and if someone wants to write a story or two in that form, they can
do so under this wording. However, if someone continually does this, that
could be considered abuse. For example, if someone decided to start writing
exclusively for Brock, having Brock mention the author's WGed character once
in every Brock post, that would certainly call for a warning. In the case of
option C, an author could start writing Brock posts exclusively as long as
the author mentioned ANY WGed character's name. Personally, I find option
"C" way too lenient since under that wording I could just stop writing for
my characters altogether and decide to write Cappie posts instead, provided
I don't make major changes to her character.

> Yes, that was my concern. I don't think that anyone who's currently
writing
> would do this, but the FAQ is written with a worst case scenario in mind.

Yeah, I think Adrian Tymes is taking into account that none of the current
authors are looking for ways to abuse of this rule, and he wants authors to
have as much freedom defining the PW! universe as possible, but I think that
if option C passes, the concept of the WG limit can be turned into a joke by
an author seeking to do so. If option C passes, then I can just start
writing Terri posts, Dharak posts, Hunter the Eevee posts, Brock's Diner
posts, Jutta posts, Amber Powers posts, and Trent posts, without mentioning
my characters at all, let alone featuring them in the post. There would be
no limitation on which characters I can write for.

> > It might be good to
> > add a footnote that it's good practice to write stories only with your
own
> > characters, unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise.
>
> Should option 'c' win out, I think that would be worth adding.

I'll mention it in the FAQ if options A, C, or D pass, since the possibility
of writing for characters that don't have a WG can arise under any of those
wordings.

-Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Iabrc.16512$zO3.16509@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> The name of the character could arguably be an "element" of the Writer's
> Guide, and if someone wants to write a story or two in that form, they can
> do so under this wording.

All right, then I will continue to vote for option 'd'.


--Beth

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> Yeah, I think Adrian Tymes is taking into account that none of the current
> authors are looking for ways to abuse of this rule, and he wants authors to
> have as much freedom defining the PW! universe as possible, but I think that
> if option C passes, the concept of the WG limit can be turned into a joke by
> an author seeking to do so. If option C passes, then I can just start
> writing Terri posts, Dharak posts, Hunter the Eevee posts, Brock's Diner
> posts, Jutta posts, Amber Powers posts, and Trent posts, without mentioning
> my characters at all, let alone featuring them in the post. There would be
> no limitation on which characters I can write for.

You don't want me to look for ways in which I could break the rules.
*I* don't want me to look for ways in which I could break the rules.
At least, not for the purpose of just flaunting the sprit of PW!.

The rules exist to make what we have better, especially by helping new
authors understand what is and is not allowed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Iabrc.16512$zO3.16509@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Bandraptor" <bandraptor@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XMarc.305$PU5.8@fed1read06...

> > Ah. I'm reading the rule as, "some element of the story must focus on a
> > character/Pokemon/location/NPC that's mentioned in a Writer's Guide."
> > You're reading it as, "each story must feature an Element, such as a
> > character/Pokemon/location/NPC, that's mentioned in a Writer's Guide."
> Rob,
> > Dread, which interpretation is correct? If it is the latter, I'd like
to
> > switch my vote to option 'c'.
>
> The name of the character could arguably be an "element" of the Writer's
> Guide, and if someone wants to write a story or two in that form, they can
> do so under this wording. However, if someone continually does this, that
> could be considered abuse. For example, if someone decided to start
writing
> exclusively for Brock, having Brock mention the author's WGed character
once
> in every Brock post, that would certainly call for a warning. In the case
of
> option C, an author could start writing Brock posts exclusively as long as
> the author mentioned ANY WGed character's name. Personally, I find option
> "C" way too lenient since under that wording I could just stop writing for
> my characters altogether and decide to write Cappie posts instead,
provided
> I don't make major changes to her character.
>

There's a thought...is there any rule in the in the FAQ that says that the
creator of a character can forbid certain other authors to write for their
character? This could be useful in the situation in your example, Rob, if
Cappie's author didn't want you writing for their character that much. Of
course, if they're fine with it, you're only hurting yourself by not giving
your own characters time in the limelight.

Can anyone see how this can be abused? I have some vague ideas, but nothing
I could write coherently about.

--Marco262, the overstressed, midterm-hating ferret

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>
> I thought "godmoding" referred to unbeatable-type characters, not
> whether one owned the written characters.

Not just unbeatable, but also it's author not giving others a chance to
even defend themselves.

A friend of mine told me about the ultimate god-moder: A corrupt
moderator of a certain Zoids board who is manipulating the Sysop and
other mods. He's placed tight restrictions on what sorts of Zoids one
can pilot, including player-submitted materials that must meet his
exacting standards (i.e. long-winded and realistic descriptions), and
what those pilot characters can be. Meanwhile, his god-like Zoid has a
pilot with psychic powers exceeding those of Professor X, armor that
completely deflects and magnifies damage back to the aggressor, claws
that ignore armor, and cockpit-seeking missiles that create black holes
that destroy their targets but not the planets they're standing on, all
of which needed only to be described the way I did just now. He
"heroically" destroys all enemies in a single post, sometimes banning
their authors, and walks off saying "Heh, that was easy."

He claims that his omnipotent Zoid is merely for taking out god-moders,
which seems to include anyone who wins any battle without his approval.

--

Chet "Tech" Weaver

AIM: PanGatomon
MSN: Nichirasu@hotmail.com
eMail: zeroohki at netscape dot net
Yahoo! Messenger: tech_weaver
ICQ: 122744531
Webcomic: http://desperadocoyote.keenspace.com

My Adventure Quest character:
http://www.battleon.com/aq-chardetail.asp?temp=131213
You can play Adventure Quest at http://www.battleon.com

Sometimes, I notice someone has posted a reply to one of my messages and
I think, "Oh, great, what did I say this time?"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

Rob wrote:

>
> 1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:
>
> a) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide, the author must write a
> story that settles the character, duo, group, or location. It's up to the
> author to decide how to settle the Writer's Guide, but if the author tries
> to retire the WG without settling it first, the retirement will not be
> valid.
>
Approved. Of the three, I think it allows for the most freedom and the
least clutter. If they want to dump their character post-haste, they
can simply state their character suddenly dies from being hit by a
meteor or experiencing spontaneous human combustion and let everyone
else deal with the aftermath.

> 2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
>
> b) PW! story posts must contain a character with a Writer's Guide that
> belongs to the author writing the post.
>
If any, this one. I think A is too tight while C and D may be too loose.


> 3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:
>
> b) Adding the emphasized part to the current Pokemon limitations in the FAQ:
> "These pokemon CANNOT be captured, cannot be your trainer, cannot be cloned
> or killed, you cannot get their babies, *your Pokemon cannot possess
> attributes of these Pokemon, or learn the moves that are unique to these
> Pokemon*... well, you get the idea."
>
> c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
> pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to an
> extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other, although
> there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both parents
> (as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but these
> creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
> captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
> tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).
>
I say both of these, but if it had to be one it'd be C.

--

Chet "Tech" Weaver

AIM: PanGatomon
MSN: Nichirasu@hotmail.com
eMail: zeroohki at netscape dot net
Yahoo! Messenger: tech_weaver
ICQ: 122744531
Webcomic: http://desperadocoyote.keenspace.com

My Adventure Quest character:
http://www.battleon.com/aq-chardetail.asp?temp=131213
You can play Adventure Quest at http://www.battleon.com

Sometimes, I notice someone has posted a reply to one of my messages and
I think, "Oh, great, what did I say this time?"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.nintendo.pokemon (More info?)

"Rob" <robfrompw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAwqc.20733$KE6.11424@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> The last META discussion left us with three rules that required a change
or
> clarification in wording. In this poll, please specify which wording you
> prefer for the three unclear rules from the last poll. If you don't like
any
> of the wordings and don't want the rule in any of its forms, you can vote
> for "none".
>
> 1) Incorporating retirement into the FAQ:

> c) If an author wishes to retire a Writer's Guide that's less than a year
> old, the members of the Pokewars! must vote on whether to allow the
> retirement or not. If the Writer's Guide is more than a year old, the
author
> may retire it without conducting a poll.

My vote goes for C. This wording is more in line with what I feel is
important. It keeps the cast of characters from rotating too quickly, which
was the original intent.

> 2) Featuring WGed characters in posts:
>
> a) PW! story posts must contain a character with a Writer's Guide,
> regardless of whether the character belongs to the author or not.

I didn't particularly like any of the wordings available there (because of
the NPCs being mentioned in the earlier wordings), so this gets my vote.

> 3) Limitations on "Hybrid" Pokemon:

> c) The "no new pokemon" rule extends to making hybrids of pokemon and
> pokemon that amount to new species. Different species can interbreed to
an
> extent, but the result is always clearly one species or the other,
although
> there can be cosmetic adjustments and some mixing of moves from both
parents
> (as per the games). Hybrids of pokemon and non-pokemon do exist, but
these
> creatures are not pokemon. For example, they can not (successfully) be
> captured by pokeballs, and the Pokemon League does not allow their use in
> tournaments or contests (although they can be trainers and coordinators).

I like this, it seems more in line with the canon material that Pokemon
presents.

--Dreadite