Hi there,

In the midst of the "Change" thread, I got an idea about the Glossary.

OK, here's how it'll go. Everyone has one week to mail me in 250 words or less their understanding of the term Social Contract as it applies to role-playing. Send it to my email, sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com.

Use any other jargon terms or not as you see fit. Include relevant links from the Forge forums. This is important. No entry will be considered unless it includes at least one relevant link.

What'll I do? I'll read them. I'll distil them into a 250-word-or-less packet and post it for feedback. I'll put it in the Glossary archive, which is a fancy way of saying keeping it on file. As time goes by, that archive will be designed into a service at the Forge.

And we'll keep doing this, all right? One by one.

Cruelty alert: (1) I have the final say, although if past experience is any guide, some of you will dissent so wonderfully that I'll be forced (forced! I tell you) to include your objections, at least as alternatives. (2) That's one week from this very posting, to the friggin' second. If you miss it, you miss it.

Best,
Ron

I won't be signing up for this one since I only have a idea of what it is but I'm not 100% sure ;) BUT my point is, maybe it would be useful to actually have people reply to your calls for vocab so we see how things are filling up. I mean I can't tell if you have have 0 or 10 people writing to you Ron. And sometimes that might be a problem. Let's say I have something to write but I don't have much time so I think "oh, someone else will surely have time to write something" but everyone else thinks pretty much the same.

To prevent having a disappointed moderator, maybe a good idea would be to let everyone who pledges to make a contribution (within the time limit!!) comment the "call for comments"-thread they plan to write for.

I don't mean that once you have replied that you will, then it's written in blood and the devil comes and gets you if you don't mail that stuff in time. It's just something helpful for everyone to see that there are contributions coming in and so.

What do you think Ron?

Hi Christoffer,

It's a good suggestion, but after a little thought, I've decided to say, "No, it's strictly a matter of, if you want to do it, then do it." I'd rather not have any tracking thing going on of this kind.

If anyone is interested in how many folks have responded, then they can ask, and I'll tell'em.

Oh, here's another point, although it's not anything to do with Christoffer's idea. Nothing is "secret" about this whole thing - if someone wants to post their idea or definition into RPG Theory rather than just to me, they can (which is no more nor less than what they could always have done).

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Thank you for deciding, and spearheading an intitiative.

So you're the Professor, who gets to be the Madman?

--Emily Care

Emily Care wrote: So you're the Professor, who gets to be the Madman?

Hey,

The Professor does not want a Madman, the Professor wants a Marianne. No, two. Umm, two and a ...

(slap!)

All right, all right, a Madman will do. Welcome, Fang.

Best,
Ron

Sorry if I've missed where it was posted elsewhere, but will there be another term to define this week?

Or, given the thread about Ron's terminology, perhaps we should switch this to a Forge "Glossalia" instead of Glossary.

Just a thought...

--Emily Care

Thanks Emily!

Yeah, let's do another one. I received some excellent help for Social Contract. So ... let's try ...

Currency

Folks, remember, one of the primary purposes of all this is to identify key threads.

Best,
Ron