CCC game - now Magic and genre discussion

[CatDoom]

One option would be to limit voting in the sapients round to participants, and then simply declare entries with few-to-no votes extinct and/or nonexistent. That way we wouldn't have to put up with accommodating species that are too strange for most people's tastes.

We should probably also require that each species submission provide at least some basic notes on the linguistic capabilities (vocal or otherwise) of the subject. For instance, a species with a significantly differently shaped mouth or vocal tract might provide guidelines on what places of articulation are available for exploitation in languages developed later.

I think it could be really cool figuring out how a language originating in one species might be learned and approximated by another. For instance, maybe a human-like species could use oral click consonants and creaky-voiced sounds to imitate a language originally spoken by a species that communicates by clacking their insect-like mandibles together in different patterns.

[Lyhoko Leaci]

For the continent voting, can we have the votes be based on the design of the continents themselves, and not the prettiness of the maps, to make it so the voting doesn't end up being a "pick the best drawer" contest?

[Torco]

For the continent voting, can we have the votes be based on the design of the continents themselves, and not the prettiness of the maps, to make it so the voting doesn't end up being a "pick the best drawer" contest?

to some degree I am in agreement: but, on the other hand, the quality <as opposed to prettiness> of the maps kind of *is* the continent itself, since there is no continent to speak of: if the map has no rivers, for example, the continent has no rivers... and we all like rivers, don't we?
I think the detail and amount of information should be as or more important than prettiness, yes. Then again, a world map would look pretty ugly with a big ole blob in the middle where eurasia would be?

[ObsequiousNewt]

I notice a problem: if all of our continents but the winner's are going to end up being much smaller islands, what happens to our mountains and rivers?

[Torco]

I don't think all but the winner will end up being islands: i'd imagine first place gets eurasia-size, second place gets africa size, then northam size, then southam size, then australia size, and then the rest of everyone gets islands. HOWEVER, consider that islands are full of rivers and mountains. just pick an island, like madagascar, great britain or chiloé, and go check them out in Google Earth: they're full of rivers and mountains, hills and valleys and all sorts of nice features.

This will mean, of course, that small islands will be much more detailed per hectare than large continents: which they might as well be, rite?

[Lyra]

Hmmm... now I almost want to be and island...


~Lyra

[ObsequiousNewt]

Hmmm... now I almost want to be and island...

Just wait until you see mine...

[Lyra]

Hmmm... now I almost want to be and island...

Just wait until you see mine...

*Wonders greatly at the meanings!!!*


~Lyra

[Torco]

Wait until you see my island! its thick and full of winding currents of liquid

[Lyhoko Leaci]

For the continent voting, can we have the votes be based on the design of the continents themselves, and not the prettiness of the maps, to make it so the voting doesn't end up being a "pick the best drawer" contest?

to some degree I am in agreement: but, on the other hand, the quality <as opposed to prettiness> of the maps kind of *is* the continent itself, since there is no continent to speak of: if the map has no rivers, for example, the continent has no rivers... and we all like rivers, don't we?
I think the detail and amount of information should be as or more important than prettiness, yes. Then again, a world map would look pretty ugly with a big ole blob in the middle where eurasia would be?

The maps can always be prettied up after they are picked, I see the maps here as just being the basic shapes of the continents/islands/whatever they end up being. As for rivers, just add them in after if there aren't any to begin with, they probably depend on climate anyway, which isn't determined until after the voting. Of course, this style of voting won't help much for those who just put a blob down, but it should be more based on the effort the people put into the landmasses, not effort they put into making the map itself pretty.

[Ars Lande]

For the continent voting, can we have the votes be based on the design of the continents themselves, and not the prettiness of the maps, to make it so the voting doesn't end up being a "pick the best drawer" contest?

to some degree I am in agreement: but, on the other hand, the quality <as opposed to prettiness> of the maps kind of *is* the continent itself, since there is no continent to speak of: if the map has no rivers, for example, the continent has no rivers... and we all like rivers, don't we?
I think the detail and amount of information should be as or more important than prettiness, yes. Then again, a world map would look pretty ugly with a big ole blob in the middle where eurasia would be?

Just commenting on the rivers: I left the rivers out on purpose (and IIRC I'm not alone), since we don't know about climate and patterns of rainfall at this stage.

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

For the continent voting, can we have the votes be based on the design of the continents themselves, and not the prettiness of the maps, to make it so the voting doesn't end up being a "pick the best drawer" contest?

to some degree I am in agreement: but, on the other hand, the quality <as opposed to prettiness> of the maps kind of *is* the continent itself, since there is no continent to speak of: if the map has no rivers, for example, the continent has no rivers... and we all like rivers, don't we?
I think the detail and amount of information should be as or more important than prettiness, yes. Then again, a world map would look pretty ugly with a big ole blob in the middle where eurasia would be?

Just commenting on the rivers: I left the rivers out on purpose (and IIRC I'm not alone), since we don't know about climate and patterns of rainfall at this stage.

all that matters is the land itself and mountains...

also.. are we gonna make like a huge world map of this, because that would be hard do considering the inconsistent details and styles of each posters "continent"

[Lyra]

How will we parcel land after the continents are set? Doesn't make sense that one player has to develop a whole continent while the other only a insy island.

Wait until you see my island! its thick and full of winding currents of liquid

Yes, I bet we will all enjoy it.


~Lyra

[zompist]

I'll create a world map from the entrants, so they'll all be in one style.

When it comes time to create civs, you can select any spot on the map— you are not restricted to 'your' continent. I don't think clusters of civs are a problem, as that makes for more interesting histories.

[Torco]

what time is it now, for the purposes of the deadline?

[zompist]

It's 1 pm now, so another 11 hours. Get Torcolandia going now!!

[Torco]

Whoa, so I have until my 3am.

sure, it just needs a couple more details. its gonna be legen-wait for it-dairy.

[zompist]

Well, by popular demand, looks like we'll have some kind of ranked voting.

However, I don't really know how to score it. Any suggestions?

[Lyra]

Well, by popular demand, looks like we'll have some kind of ranked voting.

However, I don't really know how to score it. Any suggestions?

Each time a map is named first it gets 2 points added in its name. For 2nd only one point and then you go decreasing from there. At the end you make a total sum of the points of each name and get a relative order. You think up the increments of points yourself, though. Just putting ideas out.

~Lyra

[Zju]

Well, by popular demand, looks like we'll have some kind of ranked voting.

However, I don't really know how to score it. Any suggestions?

One possibility is to have the highest score be x, the second highest be x-1, the third highest x-2, et cetera. However, the maximum score shouldn't depend on the number of votes, so after a certain number, all votes count as one, e.g.
I 5
II 4
III 3
IV 2
V 1
VI 1
VII 1
and so on. Also, since we're going for a ranked voting, people should probably be required to vote for a minimum number of entires, e.g. 3. Most people like more than one map anyway.
edit: lyra beat me to it

[Torco]

http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~legrand/rbvote/calc.html

this seems to work wonderfully
EDIT: damn, it doesn't give the ranked list of losers. it does tell us that preliminary results indicate the condorcet winner is lyra.

[ObsequiousNewt]

Wait, I just had a different idea:

Instead of voting on the continents, we can all create different world maps using most/all of the continents, and discuss/vote on those. This solves the problem of how the world would be eventually arranged, and it is a lot more representative of how much value we all ascribe to each continent.

[KathTheDragon]

I don't like that idea.

Drawing a decent-looking continent was hard enough, and I don't want to have to go to the trouble of making a world map too.

[Zju]

Still after we get the poll results may be Zompist should offer us a few variants to vote on?

[zompist]

Hmm, how about Zju's idea, plus normalization so each voter is counted the same?

Say everyone gets 4 votes. This gives integer votes if a person votes for 4 maps: 4, 3, 2, 1.

If you vote for three maps, we first assign 3, 2, 1. That adds up to 6 so we multiply by 10/6 to get 5, 3.33, 1.67.

If you vote for 5 maps, we first assign 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Then multiply by 10/15 to get 3.33, 2.667, 2, 1.333, .667.