Core Canon

Summary:

A proposal for voluntary and collaborative movement towards a "central" set of canonical articles. CURRENTLY LOCKED, as per request, pending re-organization of ideas.

page 1 of 212next »

Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 19:08

Per Aelanna's statement in chat, proposal has been rescinded for now.

+ show block

I know, I know. The title and summary alone are probably already raising peoples' blood pressure, but please hear me out:

What I am proposing is a move to establish a subset of the site — primarily articles but potentially tales as well — that constitute a semi-consistent canon (not continuity, I dislike that word for reasons I'll explain below). The guidelines for inclusion into Core Canon are as follows:

• Core Canon pages MUST NOT directly contradict anything established in the canonical information guides: About the SCP Foundation, Groups of Interest, Object Classes, Security Clearance Levels, Secure Facilities & Locations, and Task Forces.
  • Core Canon pages are free to explore areas that are not explicitly covered by said guides. You can still make up new sites and task forces or come up with things that lie outside the framework, you just can't contradict the framework itself.
  • Core Canon pages are free to contradict each other. This isn't a "continuity" wherein everything coexists, they must just plausibly coexist with the framework.
• Core Canon pages MUST follow some extra guidelines that will be written at a future date. These are things that include but may not necessarily be limited to:
  • An actual canonical list for *K-class events.
  • An actual canonical list of amnestic classifications.
  • Various other things that we've explicitly disallowed over the years because "no canon" or "make up your own, because no one follows the rules."
• Core Canon pages MUST adhere to scientific accuracy. No more amnestic/amnesiac debates, no more questionable science. If it's in Core, it has to be plausible when held against the science it parodies.
• Core Canon will have its own index page and a rating module badge similar to the Heritage Collection emblem.
• Core Canon pages probably shouldn't be part of another, existing canon. That's just contradictory to me, but this is up for debate.

The Core Canon is not a unilateral attempt to codify the site's corpus of text. To explain:

• Inclusion into Core Canon is entirely voluntary. Only the original author or designated steward of any particular article is allowed to submit an article for inclusion, and any changes to said article for inclusion into Core Canon must be done by said author or steward.
• When an article is submitted for inclusion into Core Canon, it will be reviewed by a number of senior staff (number to be determined, let's just say 3 for argument's sake), who will determine the article's eligibility.

---

Collected Points:

• Yes, I realize that some people see this as staff peer pressure for authors to adhere to a singular "continuity". This bothers me for several reasons:
  • I don't see this as "continuity". We're not defining a set of articles that MUST be assumed to exist, they are just in adherence with the canonical information guides and could plausibly coexist. Readers are still free to make their own interpretation.
  • Yes, this is peer pressure, but when has peer pressure to collaborate instead of being out on your own cloud a bad thing? I would argue that maintaining the content of the site is part of staff's responsibility, something that I know some people disagree with but if we are only here to do site maintenance and rule enforcement, why do we promote people for their opinions? I honestly also think that making it so staff can't "play with their own toys" is really unfair and leads to burnout. We can't forget that we are writers too, and that we're here because a majority of staff felt our viewpoint was valuable. Let's not downplay our own value.
• Yes, there's the potential that this might push away some authors from the community. However, I could safely argue that the people who are most strongly inclined to pull away are also those whose visions of the site and what it should be are so incompatible with the rest of the community that letting them have their way would lead to an inevitable fragmentation of the community and drive others away as well. It's foolish to allow ourselves to be constantly stonewalled by crippling indecision: people will come and go anyways, and we seem to be forgetting that the community doesn't consist entirely of who's already here, we have to think about attracting new blood as well, and I would argue that our anarchic multicanon stance drives away plenty of people as it is.

---

I might be forgetting some other important points, as I'm kind of typing this up in a hurry. Will add them if I remember them.

Last edited on 08 May 2014 21:12 by Zyn Show more

Re: Core Canon

Eskobar 08 May 2014 19:23

Supporting all of this in theory and expressing an interest in helping out in the execution.

Re: Core Canon

Silberescher 08 May 2014 19:24

I know, I know. The title and summary alone are probably already raising peoples' blood pressure

This thread has been up for less than ten minutes (as of when I started to type this post), and I've already seen some users repelled by the name. So, first impression is, if we're going to have to fight a reaction to a name that causes alarm because it makes this sound like something it isn't, can we come up with a more accurate name?

As far as I can tell, this is basically the act of collecting up a bunch of trivial setting details with little effect on storytelling and slapping a merit badge on things that follow them, and if I'm correct, can we pick a term that portrays it as that? Something like "Setting Consistent" or "Database Compliant", something that doesn't conjure imagery of arguing Star Wars fans?

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:00

So, first impression is, if we're going to have to fight a reaction to a name that causes alarm because it makes this sound like something it isn't, can we come up with a more accurate name?

That's what I've been wondering as well, but no one has come up with anything. Someone brought up the name "Baseline" and that's perhaps slightly better, but really awkward to say and to be completely honest, I see no problem in supporting all the implications that "Core Canon" entails. But that's just my personal opinion.

Re: Core Canon

Wogglebug 08 May 2014 20:13

'Alpha' is a good word. So is 'Baseline'. 'Foundation' is a good word. A two-word-pair would be good, or an artificial compound word.

Last edited on 08 May 2014 20:14 by Wogglebug Show more

Re: Core Canon

Silberescher 08 May 2014 20:59

I had two (admittedly not great, but better than the existing name) suggestions in my first post.

Beyond the matter of audience reaction, there's also the fact that "canon" has been given a specific meaning specifically to mean a self-contained tale series with its own specific continuity, which is completely separate from this, since this seems to involve only SCPs.

Re: Core Canon

SoullessSingularity 08 May 2014 19:29

Why can't it just be called a canon in the same vein as all the other canons that exist? It seems to be very similar in terms of "this is the world we're working with, go with it". Why not just treat it as another canon like how we treat currently existing canons?

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 08 May 2014 19:30 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:02

Because that doesn't address the issues of fragmentation and re-interpretation without a baseline to compare to. We tell people that they're free to come up with their own conclusions and interpretations, but we never establish what the baseline is so they know what's being altered or reinterpreted.

To reiterate: If Canons are alternative canon, then what are they an alternative to? We have no answer for this.

Re: Core Canon

SoullessSingularity 08 May 2014 20:26

I have no problem with the general idea that "alternate canons are alternate to X established thing", but I have problem that this is very vague with a general handwave of "we'll figure out these potentially important specifics when we already have committed to doing it".

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Core Canon

RJB_R 08 May 2014 20:32

then what are they an alternative to?

They can be the alternative to the universe pages, if we expand upon them enough. About the SCP Foundation, the GoI page, if we can actually make that more than just bullet point listing… that's the sort of stuff that would solve this. Building up the supplementary pages to form a stronger, more cohesive version of the Foundation to contradict with the canons and such. The canon pages idea is detrimental to that, I think. There shouldn't be any works in this setup, and it shouldn't be treated as a canon. We just need to take what we have with the universe material, and expand it enough to the point where we have something to point to and say 'this is the core vision of the foundation. you are free to ignore it, or change it, but this is the baseline you would be ignoring or changing from'.

I think this is what most people here want, no? More defined world narrative. Not grouping all the articles we feel meet a certain criteria into one group and calling them the best.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Core Canon

Wogglebug 08 May 2014 19:30

While I like the concept of a canon with some basis, I don't like the idea of doing it in this way. We all know the point of this is to establish one standard which will, by social forces, be the only option for people to write under on the site. I don't think it's fair to set that up from the standpoint of staff with no input from users and readers outside of the small subset that makes up staff. If we had some way of doing it that didn't exclude the rest of the userbase in their entirety, I would hold a different opinion. But that has not yet been provided.

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 19:58

I don't think it's fair to set that up from the standpoint of staff with no input from users and readers outside of the small subset that makes up staff.

You and I both know that this will never happen if the entire public is tapped for their opinion, and furthermore I feel that this is gravely insulting to the people who are staff. Why are we all here if it's not for our opinions and viewpoints? Why can't we be trusted to direct the future of the site and guide its writing? Moreover, why do we have so many staff members if their opinions ultimately mean nothing? If all we're here to do is site maintenance and rule enforcement, then 75% of us are redundant and useless.

If we had some way of doing it that didn't exclude the rest of the userbase in their entirety, I would hold a different opinion.

Staff, a tiny subset of the membership, already is crippled by indecision when it comes to any aspect of site canon. You know this, we all know this. We will get precisely nowhere if the inclusion process requires outside input, and the whole spiel may as well be a joke at that point.

Re: Core Canon

Wogglebug 08 May 2014 20:09

In my own opinion, if asking for any sort of input from outside the persons backing a project makes that project impossible, and it affects those same outside persons, the project is deserving of some consideration as to exactly why that is. This has nothing to do with whether staff have decent ideas.

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:16

In my own opinion, if asking for any sort of input from outside the persons backing a project makes that project impossible, and it affects those same outside persons, the project is deserving of some consideration as to exactly why that is.

The reason is because there are very strongly opinionated people on both sides of the canon-vs-noncanon debate who are so vehemently in support of their various positions that any discussion about it inevitably grinds to a halt. We see this in staff discussion alone, and public discussion gets much worse. This is not something we can continue to ignore and defer by pushing for yet more discussion.

Re: Core Canon

Wogglebug 08 May 2014 20:18

I feel that by simply giving up on any sort of dialogue based on the fact that it's difficult, staff would be turning its back on the user base. This is not something that is good for public relations.

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:33

No, but if public opinion is incapable of coming to a majority consensus, then it's staff's responsibility to tip the vote.

Re: Core Canon

Wogglebug 08 May 2014 20:47

The issue in that line of thinking is the assumption that there is a close actual difference, the veracity of which can not be tested without a vote.

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:56

That brings to question when any site decision was made by public vote. The Heritage Collection was done by administrative fiat; the public was only allowed to provide their opinion in which articles were made Heritage entries. What precedence do we even have for making decisions this way? How on earth do you intend to get a public vote?

Re: Core Canon

Dexanote 08 May 2014 19:42

Okay, so explain to me in a less vague and clinical way, what you're looking to do. Exactly, with examples, because vaguely going "we need to move away from our anarchic multicanon stance" doesn't answer a question in a clear way. Not trying to sound pissy, just being really clear that these kinds of proposals scare me because I have a hard time trying to comprehend every little implication.

"Various other things that we've explicitly disallowed over the years because "no canon" or "make up your own, because no one follows the rules." < in specific is so horiffically vague.

How I'm comprehending this is to designate a kind of baseline Foundation. Not a Canon in the way we've been saying (like a storyline in the vein of Compeditive Eschatology or Unfounded), but a kind of blueprint or springboard one can read to get a feel for the True DNA of the site, before moving away to spin it their own way. It would probably be better NOT referred to as a Canon, if this is the case, because the title in itself is confusing to the point of freaking people out (as you state yourself). Is this a fair assessment? Quality, classic articles and Tales and whatnot that best communicate the world the Foundation is at the core. Is this accurate?

Last edited on 08 May 2014 19:42 by Dexanote Show more

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 19:55

How I'm comprehending this is to designate a kind of baseline Foundation. Not a Canon in the way we've been saying (like a storyline in the vein of Compeditive Eschatology or Unfounded), but a kind of blueprint or springboard one can read to get a feel for the True DNA of the site, before moving away to spin it their own way.

Yes, you're correct. "Canon" is probably not the best term because of the colloquial usage on site, but that's the intent, so we have a body of work that we can point newbies to and say, "this is our baseline, what we're about, so you know what we're about and can branch out from there".

"Various other things that we've explicitly disallowed over the years because "no canon" or "make up your own, because no one follows the rules."

I feel that there's a lot of little things that we're simply not allowed to authoritatively say because we're so afraid of sounding authoritative, which feels very very silly to me. How many times a week do we have people asking about XK events, amnestics, or other various little details that any cohesive community should be able to cough up on command? Right now, our policy is, "no one knows, make up your own idea" and that feels incredibly silly.

"we need to move away from our anarchic multicanon stance"

Right now, the SCP community is only collaborative in the broadest sense. Few people collaborate directly with other authors outside of the explicit collaborative projects, and a small subset of people are actively working to pull the site member-base further apart by advocating a "who cares, make up everything" approach to continuity and/or canon. I feel that this is really detrimental to the site, something I've brought up many times before, and I feel we need to fight against it.

Re: Core Canon

SoullessSingularity 08 May 2014 20:04

"this is our baseline, what we're about, so you know what we're about and can branch out from there".

This is going to be a question of the establishment of a baseline, because I know I'm a bit concerned about this baseline, because this is in effect encouraging newbies to follow a very specific core that has such specifics such as:

Core Canon pages MUST NOT directly contradict anything established in the canonical information guides: About the SCP Foundation, Groups of Interest, Object Classes, Security Clearance Levels, Secure Facilities & Locations, and Task Forces.

Core Canon pages MUST follow some extra guidelines that will be written at a future date.

Various other things that we've explicitly disallowed over the years because "no canon" or "make up your own, because no one follows the rules."

Core Canon pages probably shouldn't be part of another, existing canon.

These are ALL things I have serious problems with if we're going to be presenting this as some kind of baseline that everyone else is branching out of. The sheer vagueness in this makes me fairly concerned.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 08 May 2014 20:05 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:08

Those parts are vague because we don't have a conclusive answer and I don't want to give my personal opinion as a statement of what they should be. If the general concept is approved, then we as staff would hash out what those little things are. They are, however, in general things that shouldn't affect the literary value of an article. If the fact that Class A amnestics are weaker than B or C cripples your SCP, then that's kinda silly. These are all things that should be tweakable without damaging any actual content.

Re: Core Canon

SoullessSingularity 08 May 2014 20:16

I am concerned that "we as staff" will ultimately result in whomever speaks the loudest. I know I in particular have been largely against such things for basically ever, but I've been repeatedly ignored and disregarded and dismissed, and because I don't push as hard as other people (not as hard as you are pushing right now for this vision of yours) any views of mine will likely largely be ignored again. I'm concerned that "we as staff" will not actually be "we" as staff, because there is already controversy in here and in SSSC. This certainly isn't a "we" right now in even approving this, and in particular I don't know if I can agree with a "we" if the proposed baseline is so vague. If it's something so vague, but so clearly made to influence new writers in a very specific view of the site, then I'm not sure if it's okay with me.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Core Canon

Quikngruvn 08 May 2014 19:44

I'm supporting this, in that this would (I believe) stop the "brand dilution" that I think is happening. I also believe that all the concerns that this would stifle creativity and/or ghettoize non-core stuff are sincere, but overblown (and I certainly hope I'm not proven wrong).

Re: Core Canon

marslifeform 08 May 2014 20:00

I like the idea but I dislike calling it a "canon." It's feels stifling, a bit exclusive, and kind of like there's people staring over you strongly suggesting you add to it. That's another thing, I don't like the idea of having people add things to the "canon" which then have to get approved by staff. Like, what's the point of that? Furthermore, what would stop people from just not caring about this and posting regardless of the "Core Canon?" In short, I'm against setting up an actual canon-like hub/page for this at the moment.

That being said, I would like to see this being made as to clarify and possibly hone what's expected on the site. A good description of different aspects of the Foundation, like the inclusion of real science as close to reality as we can get it or the fact that different pages are still allowed to contradict each other, just not the guide, is useful, I think. But I don't think this is the way to go about it.

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:05

Furthermore, what would stop people from just not caring about this and posting regardless of the "Core Canon?"

Absolutely nothing, and that's the point. If people want to do their own alt-whatever stuff, they are perfectly free to. This is voluntary, and I was under the impression that that was a good thing.

But I don't think this is the way to go about it.

Then please, PLEASE give us alternatives. ANY alternatives. I'm sick and tired of watching everything continue to get worse while everyone just wrings their hands and complains but is unable to come up with any way of addressing the problems. We're rapidly approaching the point where I feel that any solution is better than none.

Re: Core Canon

Wogglebug 08 May 2014 20:11

The alternative I suggested to you earlier, in chat, was to treat it as a user project, falling outside the jurisdiction of staff as an entity. It would make it slightly less automatic, and while I know you don't want it to be less automatic, it would reduce the amount of tension generated.

Last edited on 08 May 2014 20:16 by Wogglebug Show more

Re: Core Canon

marslifeform 08 May 2014 20:28

Something that comes to mind is that we could have a sort of "Foundation Classifications" page added to the guides. This would detail the different things like amnestic types/levels, K-Class scenario lists, types of containments, etc. This would make a solid, clear description of what is expected in the Foundation universe.

Unfortunately, this does pose some problems. If used in a sort of "this is the bottom line, you have to do this" type of way, we have no real way to enforce it, as people will upvote or downvote whether or not they care if an article or tale matches up to the classifications list. Plus, what about the old articles using different versions of these things? For example, I know personally that I actually have several skips that probably use the same amnestic class in five different ways.

I think that it should be used as sort of a baseline, though. More heavily suggestive than just a forum post saying "hey here's what I think fits into the Foundationverse," but less aggressive and pressuring than the suggested core canon. No matter what we do, we can't actually force people to conform to these things, but I think a set of things like this would be more encouraging for use than a canon that feels like it's imposing itself on the users and requires the additional annoying process of having to get staff to review your article specifically to get it approved.

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:38

Something that comes to mind is that we could have a sort of "Foundation Classifications" page added to the guides. This would detail the different things like amnestic types/levels, K-Class scenario lists, types of containments, etc. This would make a solid, clear description of what is expected in the Foundation universe.

I would love to do this, but we've established over and over that it's not going to happen. This is my attempt to compromise.

Unfortunately, this does pose some problems. If used in a sort of "this is the bottom line, you have to do this" type of way, we have no real way to enforce it, as people will upvote or downvote whether or not they care if an article or tale matches up to the classifications list.

You're absolutely right. That's why I'm trying to introduce something that is enforceable: the "Core Canon" certification.

[…] but I think a set of things like this would be more encouraging for use than a canon that feels like it's imposing itself on the users and requires the additional annoying process of having to get staff to review your article specifically to get it approved.

This approval is not required to post a SCP or to have it stay. It's just a bonus gold star for collaborating with the rest of the community and sticking to the baseline framework.

Re: Core Canon

RJB_R 08 May 2014 20:44

Something that comes to mind is that we could have a sort of "Foundation Classifications" page added to the guides. This would detail the different things like amnestic types/levels, K-Class scenario lists, types of containments, etc. This would make a solid, clear description of what is expected in the Foundation universe.

This is more or less what I would significantly prefer to canon list crap. Show the universe in terms of our worldbuilding pages, and the canons and such can contrast that. No need for an extra layer of bureaucracy in who handles this list. In contrast to Aelanna, I think this could be done, and done fairly easily. I frankly haven't seen the strong opposition to such ideas that she's seeing, perhaps because I didn't work against a very conservative staff for years on this sort of idea. But this is a different staff, now, and I think this is a much better idea than canon list crap.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Core Canon

Crayne 08 May 2014 20:12

Like Eskobar, I'd like to see this realized. I'd like a consistent setting and an equal basis to judge articles on; this would be the closest thing to that. That does not mean I downvote any article that doesn't adhere to this baseline by the way. I just really like consistency for my own user experience.

Re: Core Canon

RJB_R 08 May 2014 20:19

I agree and disagree with some of these guidelines, so I'm going to go through them point by point to show what I like and dislike about them. There are definitely some good ideas here, but a lot of it seems to be getting ahead of ourselves in terms of what users actually want, and what would be the most practical way to accomplish the goal.

Before we set out, I'm going to assume the goal is to "make the Foundation easier to for readers to understand by defining certain aspects of the universe". If I'm incorrect in this assumption, let me know.

Core Canon will have its own index page and a rating module badge similar to the Heritage Collection emblem.

I don't understand the point of this, and I don't see how that's going to be accomplished. Are we going to be breaking up the mainlist into canon and non-canon? That doesn't seem like a very good idea. I also don't like the idea of marking them as extra special pages. This just seems like an unnecessary distinction between pages that follow general guidelines and those that don't. I really, really don't like the idea of splitting up articles in this way.
Also, would this apply to tales? Wouldn't it be more confusing for people to be reading the main list articles, and then have no frame of reference as to which tales are fitting into this "Core Canon"? It just seems like a giant clusterfuck waiting to happen, and I don't see a way to positively implement this. If we're going to be making a seperate page, like the heritage list, that lists them without taking them off the mainlist, I also fail to see the point. If we just want to make things easier to read, why do we add the distinction of canon and non-canon? Why don't we just make the pages that support the universe more codified, and then most mainlist articles will follow? There are always going to be articles that don't follow canon, and if we want to

Core Canon pages MUST NOT directly contradict anything established in the canonical information guides: About the SCP Foundation, Groups of Interest, Object Classes, Security Clearance Levels, Secure Facilities & Locations, and Task Forces.

Since this idea exists in conjunction with the above "index page seperation" thing.

Core Canon pages are free to explore areas that are not explicitly covered by said guides. You can still make up new sites and task forces or come up with things that lie outside the framework, you just can't contradict the framework itself.

I like this idea seperate from the rest, with the exception of the can't. We should always be free to make up new task forces/sites, as long as they aren't contradictory to good sense.

Core Canon pages are free to contradict each other. This isn't a "continuity" wherein everything coexists, they must just plausibly coexist with the framework.

Since this idea exists in conjunction with the above "index page seperation" thing,

Core Canon pages MUST follow some extra guidelines that will be written at a future date. These are things that include but may not necessarily be limited to:
An actual canonical list for *K-class events.
An actual canonical list of amnestic classifications.
Various other things that we've explicitly disallowed over the years because "no canon" or "make up your own, because no one follows the rules."
Core Canon pages MUST adhere to scientific accuracy. No more amnestic/amnesiac debates, no more questionable science. If it's in Core, it has to be plausible when held against the science it parodies.

I like the idea of making things up to scientific accuracy, seperate from the core canon thing, which I think is pointless. I like the cofification of the canonica setpieces. That's what I think we actually ought to be doing, and that's what, when discussing this with people, seemed like all they wanted to do. Just make the supplementary pages better, so that readers get a better idea of the operational nature of the Foundation.

Core Canon pages probably shouldn't be part of another, existing canon. That's just contradictory to me, but this is up for debate.

I don't think the core canon index should exist, period.
The Core Canon is not a unilateral attempt to codify the site's corpus of text. To explain:

Inclusion into Core Canon is entirely voluntary. Only the original author or designated steward of any particular article is allowed to submit an article for inclusion, and any changes to said article for inclusion into Core Canon must be done by said author or steward.

See my above thoughts on the core canon index page.

When an article is submitted for inclusion into Core Canon, it will be reviewed by a number of senior staff (number to be determined, let's just say 3 for argument's sake), who will determine the article's eligibility.

See my above thoughts on the core canon index page.
Collected Points:

Yes, I realize that some people see this as staff peer pressure for authors to adhere to a singular "continuity". This bothers me for several reasons:
I don't see this as "continuity". We're not defining a set of articles that MUST be assumed to exist, they are just in adherence with the canonical information guides and could plausibly coexist. Readers are still free to make their own interpretation.

I agree with this in the context of the creation of the canon implement pages, and not in the context of the core canon list, which I think is a bad idea for the reasons I illustrated above.

Yes, this is peer pressure, but when has peer pressure to collaborate instead of being out on your own cloud a bad thing? I would argue that maintaining the content of the site is part of staff's responsibility, something that I know some people disagree with but if we are only here to do site maintenance and rule enforcement, why do we promote people for their opinions? I honestly also think that making it so staff can't "play with their own toys" is really unfair and leads to burnout. We can't forget that we are writers too, and that we're here because a majority of staff felt our viewpoint was valuable. Let's not downplay our own value.

Agree with in context of the supplement pages, not with the creation of a core canon.

Yes, there's the potential that this might push away some authors from the community. However, I could safely argue that the people who are most strongly inclined to pull away are also those whose visions of the site and what it should be are so incompatible with the rest of the community that letting them have their way would lead to an inevitable fragmentation of the community and drive others away as well. It's foolish to allow ourselves to be constantly stonewalled by crippling indecision: people will come and go anyways, and we seem to be forgetting that the community doesn't consist entirely of who's already here, we have to think about attracting new blood as well, and I would argue that our anarchic multicanon stance drives away plenty of people as it is.

Agree with in context of the supplement pages, not with the creation of a core canon.

So my tl;dr is as such: I like the idea of updating and better codifying our canon supplement pages, but I don't like the idea of a core canon list. It just doesn't seem like a very good way to define a definite canon. It's a lot better to have set explanations for how things int he universe exist, and then allow authors to work with the universe we give them. Implementing the core canon index, as proposed here, is not feasible. Especially if it's voluntary, it'll mean articles that don't fit in this core canon could be excluded, and the inclusion could be subjective. It's just a messy way of doing things. Again, though, I like the update of the supplement pages, scientific accuracy, and stuff like that. That's all very smart. The core canon, not so smart.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Core Canon

Aelanna 08 May 2014 20:54

So my tl;dr is as such: I like the idea of updating and better codifying our canon supplement pages, but I don't like the idea of a core canon list.

There is absolutely no point to doing so if we're not going to do anything to get everyone on the same page about them. We've already shot down the idea of editing articles to adhere to the minor things we've suggested, this is my next best idea: to mark-up things that do go out of their way to stay consistent.

Implementing the core canon index, as proposed here, is not feasible. Especially if it's voluntary, it'll mean articles that don't fit in this core canon could be excluded, and the inclusion could be subjective.

What isn't subjective? Why is this not feasible? I wouldn't be bringing it up if it weren't.

Again, though, I like the update of the supplement pages, scientific accuracy, and stuff like that. That's all very smart. The core canon, not so smart.

If that's the case, then I want a counter-proposal from you. Writing guides is like trying to light a handle in a thunderstorm these days, it accomplishes nothing and the only thanks you get are people mocking your work and telling others to ignore it.

Re: Core Canon

RJB_R 08 May 2014 21:11

There is a point in doing so. It's making a set of pages we can point to and say "this is how it's supposed to be, you don't need to follow them, but this is the baseline for how we expect the world to work." I don't think the core canon is feasible because it's just adding another layer of bureaucracy, and confusion into whether they're official articles endorsed by staff, articles that staff think are very nice and would like others to follow, or something else entirely. As Azzle said, it's aggressive and pressuring people to fall into line, and I don't like that much at all. Recognizing the official canon supplement pages and more strongly utilizing them is a better solution.

it accomplishes nothing and the only thanks you get are people mocking your work and telling others to ignore it.

Literally the only person I've seen say anything remotely close to this is Djoric, and he wasn't even being serious about it. I've not seen anybody else say much negative about these pages, and a lot of people are using them as references in building articles. I think the guide pages have been an excellent address to how we should make our world more consistent, and expanding on these pages would probably continue to help. You seem to have an issue with feeling like your guides aren't being appreciated, so let me assure you that they are. Lots of people read and use them.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Last edited on 08 May 2014 21:12 by RJB_R Show more

page 1 of 212next »