zompist bboard

Keeping this separate as it should be a one-off discussion.

What do you think about the following?

1. Should the vote be among the participants only, or anyone who wants to vote? The latter has the advantage that I can use the board's polling mechanism. (Or to be fancy, maybe participants get 2 votes, bystanders 1?)

2. Do you think people should be able to vote for their own work?

No to both.

Yes, voting for anybody who looks upon the thread.
No, no self voting.

~Lyra

How about... only NON participants get to vote? that'd give it an even more reality TV deal.

At any rate, voting for oneself's work is kind of pointless, is it not ?

1: Open to everyone
2: No

On a side note, if only non-participants can vote, then it's impossible to vote for your own work, so the result of the second question doesn't even matter in that case.

Keeping the voting open to everyone seems the most straightforward way to go, and ZBB doesn't seem to be swarming with trolls, so it should be fine. People probably shouldn't be allowed to vote for their own work, just in case we don't get a lot of non-participant voters.

I vote for

1. Allow anyone to vote.
2. No self-voting.

I'm also in favor of counting participants' votes twice. Is that easy to do with the polling feature?

I think anyone should be allowed to vote but participants shan't be allowed to vote for themselves.

Another vote for:

1. Anyone should be allowed to vote.
2. People shouldn't be allowed to vote for their own work.

I vote that only participants get to vote on whether only participants get to vote on whether only participants get to vote on whether only participants get to vote on whether only participants get to vote on whether only participants get to vote on whether only participants get to vote on whether only participants get to vote on whether only participants get to vote on...

1. Yes.
2. No, but I'm willing to permit use of the honour system if Mark is setting up that sort of poll.

If the winning continent will be the largest, will the sizes of the others be proportional to the number of votes they get? If we do that, it might also be interesting, although not necessary, to permit votes for multiple continents to get the fullest picture of which ones people like.

Civil War Bugle wrote:If we do that, it might also be interesting, although not necessary, to permit votes for multiple continents to get the fullest picture of which ones people like.

That's an excellent idea. I second that motion

1. Voting should be open to everyone.
2. Self voting should not be allowed.

Does anyone else agree that its probably just better if we were to skip the sapient thing and just go for humans? I mean, alien languages are incredibly complicated, and I'm not seeing a lot of interest on coming up with radically different sapients... Maybe we could keep to an exercise in physical anthropology? like, subspecies of humans like denisovans and neanderthals and so on and so forth <yeah, I know, there's contention as to whether neanderthals were a different species or not, since we seem to have some neanderthal DNA and there appears to have been cross-breeding but maybe there wasn't>. It seems interesting, however, to come up with behaviorally different sapients, like... I don't know, ones where females are physically stronger and more aggressive -which radically changes the whole gender roles thing- or giant-ass hominids measuring three metres talll. I don't know, what are your thoughts?

Also, I'm assuming we're gonna go with terran biota, right? you know, dogs and wheat and yeast and so on?

-- continent creation (continents)
-- sapient creation (species)
-- first civilizations (cultures)
-- first empires (language)
-- mature empire (language)
-- dark ages (religions)
-- renaissance (language)
-- industry (type of technology)
-- contemporary (language)
-- the glorious future (...)

I'd like to comment on this here table of objects: languages languages languages. Its not like there evolved a few first civilizations on earth and then those are the cultures we're stuck with. Maybe iterating the whole 'cultures' round would result in a more textured, richer history [as opposed to a sort 'culture-nation-as-agent deal?]

VOTES FOR EVERYONE OVER 18! THIS IS MURICA!!!!11

Wait, that excludes me...

Only white property-owning males should be allowed to vote!

(In all seriousness, I agree with Lyra and everyone else.)

Torco wrote:Does anyone else agree that its probably just better if we were to skip the sapient thing and just go for humans? I mean, alien languages are incredibly complicated, and I'm not seeing a lot of interest on coming up with radically different sapients... Maybe we could keep to an exercise in physical anthropology? like, subspecies of humans like denisovans and neanderthals and so on and so forth <yeah, I know, there's contention as to whether neanderthals were a different species or not, since we seem to have some neanderthal DNA and there appears to have been cross-breeding but maybe there wasn't>. It seems interesting, however, to come up with behaviorally different sapients, like... I don't know, ones where females are physically stronger and more aggressive -which radically changes the whole gender roles thing- or giant-ass hominids measuring three metres talll. I don't know, what are your thoughts?

I'm not sure.
I'd really like to submit a truly alien (well, maybe not truly alien. Let's say, reasonably alien) sapient species; on the other hand I know that it's going to be a great deal harder coming up with languages and cultures later on; on the third tentacle, well, it'd be fun to design alien languages and cultures.
Maybe the solution would be what Mark did for Almea: aliens are relatively peripheral cultures with 'humans' taking center stage?

Come to think of it, it's really the voting rules that could be a problem. We'll vote on the best alien species; the trouble is, the best alien species is likely to be truly alien, and so hard to design languages for later on.
Another suggestion: we could make an exception for this stage, and allow people to vote for two species: 1) the best-designed one 2) the one they'd like to work on later in the game?

I'd like to comment on this here table of objects: languages languages languages. Its not like there evolved a few first civilizations on earth and then those are the cultures we're stuck with. Maybe iterating the whole 'cultures' round would result in a more textured, richer history [as opposed to a sort 'culture-nation-as-agent deal?]

Yep. Why not do language and culture rounds at each stage?

Also, Zompist, could you please put the deadline in the OP? Preferably in the title?

Torco wrote:Does anyone else agree that its probably just better if we were to skip the sapient thing and just go for humans? I mean, alien languages are incredibly complicated, and I'm not seeing a lot of interest on coming up with radically different sapients... Maybe we could keep to an exercise in physical anthropology? like, subspecies of humans like denisovans and neanderthals and so on and so forth <yeah, I know, there's contention as to whether neanderthals were a different species or not, since we seem to have some neanderthal DNA and there appears to have been cross-breeding but maybe there wasn't>. It seems interesting, however, to come up with behaviorally different sapients, like... I don't know, ones where females are physically stronger and more aggressive -which radically changes the whole gender roles thing- or giant-ass hominids measuring three metres talll. I don't know, what are your thoughts?

Yes, agreed, again. I want to be constructing regular languages, not having to bash my brain on developing and then evolving an alien culture. I would seriously doubt continuing on with the game if I would have to do that.

Homo like creatures though, would work. I mean, elves and dwarves and those little aboriginals in Middle Earth (damn were those interesting!), are just a few examples. Now, I suppose that would mean blue cats would work too, or any anthro like thing.


~Lyra

There seems to be consensus on the voting, yay.

On species, we could certainly go with the Almea-style solution of all sapients belonging to a single family. If someone really wanted to create dragons or insectoids or hyperintelligent shades of the color blue, speak up!

On languages— maybe 2 instead of 3. Stage 3 will be anthropological descriptions.

zompist wrote:There seems to be consensus on the voting, yay.

On species, we could certainly go with the Almea-style solution of all sapients belonging to a single family. If someone really wanted to create dragons or insectoids or hyperintelligent shades of the color blue, speak up!

On languages— maybe 2 instead of 3. Stage 3 will be anthropological descriptions.

I could create a race of skeletal-like humanoids... I already have a drawing...

I don't get what you mean in the last part...

Maybe the solution would be what Mark did for Almea: aliens are relatively peripheral cultures with 'humans' taking center stage?

you racist

hyperintelligent shades of the color blue

azhoh

Also, we should agree on general metaphysical and genre conventions: do we want magic and fireballs? are we after relative realism, or do we prefer to have wizards who can only do magic if they have their wands in their hands or the plot requires it

last part means something like "we'll have one more round of culture, one less of languages", way I parse it.

Lyra wrote:Yes, agreed, again. I want to be constructing regular languages, not having to bash my brain on developing and then evolving an alien culture. I would seriously doubt continuing on with the game if I would have to do that.

While I certainly wouldn't describe myself as an environmental determinist, it strikes me that even an earthlike world populated by humanlike beings would probably develop cultures that seem crazy-go-nuts alien to anyone on earth. No place on earth is truly isolated in the grand scheme of history, and those places that come close tend to develop cultural and linguistic traits that seem pretty strange compared to those in nearby, less-isolated areas; on another world, however, these traits could be the norm from which others deviate.

I don't see why we should restrict ourselves so narrowly with regard to biology when we're going to be designing everything else from the ground up. If I'm going to replace proto-Indo-European with pseudo-Taa, I should be able to put it in the mouths of octopus-birds with lemur tails for tentacles. Not that I would ever inflict either of those things on anyone.

Note: this post may have a little to do with the fact that I'm already working on an evolutionary history for gnoll-like hyena people.

zompist wrote:On species, we could certainly go with the Almea-style solution of all sapients belonging to a single family. If someone really wanted to create dragons or insectoids or hyperintelligent shades of the color blue, speak up!

I have an idea for a reptile/amphibian race.

CatDoom wrote:
I don't see why we should restrict ourselves so narrowly with regard to biology when we're going to be designing everything else from the ground up. If I'm going to replace proto-Indo-European with pseudo-Taa, I should be able to put it in the mouths of octopus-birds with lemur tails for tentacles. Not that I would ever inflict either of those things on anyone.

Sure, but a human-like vocal tracts would still help!

zompist wrote: If someone really wanted to create dragons or insectoids or hyperintelligent shades of the color blue, speak up!

I had a few ideas for a non-humanoid species — but I really don't mind working on a more humanlike species if that's the consensus.

I have an idea or two for a marine mammal-esque sapient. Still got a number of sketches of evolutionary pathways I never followed up.