Heh, most of the criticisms for my stuff was that it generated too many questions for the viewer. That's what I wanted to do!

I figured that if we're going to be using one of these folks in the overarching plot, it'd be better to leave some stuff open-ended while leading the viewer/writer in a general direction. The backhistory was intended to provide that context. Maybe I took the wrong approach.

Anyway, by that you can probably tell what's mine.

Well its been a hectic week for me so I haven't been around much to comment on the posts. I also ment to post the voting results sooner but they are ready now so here they are:

	                           Total  NormilizedEntry 1 - SOROLAND & SANGLANTE	     8	    6.7Entry 2 - Shai	                     1	    0.8Entry 3 - AEGER	                     3	    2.5Entry 4 - Shin - Disqualified	     0	    0.0Entry 5 - Kael of Krome	             0	    0.0Entry 6 - Micah	                     2	    1.7Entry 7 - Airre Running in Flowers   6	    5.0Entry 8 - Chinu-a	            12     10.0Entry 9 - Anahata?	             4	    3.3Entry 10 - Chiba, Ichiwa	     0	    0.0Total was calculated as follows:1st place = 3 points2nd place = 2 points3rd place = 1 pointThe normalized value = Total/12*10

I will post the final results and reviews either today or tommorow.

On Voting
I don't plan to include in any future round the idea of people voting for their own entries since it serves no purpose. If you want people to know what you think of your own entry then post a self analysis. Everyone already knows how good they feel their entry is from reading the other entries, so only reason to vote for yourself is to tell everyone else your opinion of your own work. If that’s what you want to do then it can be done far more effectively in self criticism

Quote:

On Voting I don't plan to include in any future round the idea of people voting for their own entries since it serves no purpose. If you want people to know what you think of your own entry then post a self analysis. Everyone already knows how good they feel their entry is from reading the other entries, so only reason to vote for yourself is to tell everyone else your opinion of your own work. If that’s what you want to do then it can be done far more effectively in self criticism.

Full voting is not for the purpose you described. The reason to have a full voting is to include your own entry in the judgement as you evaluate the others, to compare the other entries against yours. Self criticism does not serve the same purpose.


On the top-three system:
The original intent of the top-three voting system was a tally. When a voter votes, for three entries that are among the best. The three entries are not ranked. Each vote worths one point. If you reapply the this voting system to the votes in Round1, you see that the results are identical.

Man, again we got 10 entries but only 6 people voted? >.<

Estok - As for the idea that any interaction between two characters should affect both of them, that's an interesting thought, but thinking about it, I think I disagree. I think it's better if only one character is changing in any given interaction, while the other(s) should stay the same, it's clearer and more powerful that way. I'm not really sure how to explain why I think that - it has something to do with vector physics and is also implied by the Dramatica theory's requirement that one of the two main characters in any story be 'changing' while the other is 'steadfast'. Eh, well I'll think about it and try to come up with a clearer explanation.

Did the master believe that the children were in danger? Well, he knew that Shai fighting the barbarians would not directly protect the children - in point of fact some would probably get killed in the fighting if it happened right there in the village. And the master knew that he himself was capable of protecting the children of his own village, although not other children elsewhere in the land. And finally he though that 1) Shai was almost as dangerous as the barbarians, and 2) giving the chakra power to someone makes that person dangerous.

We need to find a way to get more people to vote.

I'm strongly in favor of making it mandatory for all entrants to vote.

Quote:

Original post by Beige We need to find a way to get more people to vote.

We could make another note in the Lounge when the next round start, or when a round of voting starts, since the voting was almost over last time we tried that. However, it does take a lot of time to read through all those entries. I did expect everyone who entered this round to vote, however.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Estok - As for the idea that any interaction between two characters should affect both of them, that's an interesting thought, but thinking about it, I think I disagree. I think it's better if only one character is changing in any given interaction, while the other(s) should stay the same, it's clearer and more powerful that way. I'm not really sure how to explain why I think that - it has something to do with vector physics and is also implied by the Dramatica theory's requirement that one of the two main characters in any story be 'changing' while the other is 'steadfast'. Eh, well I'll think about it and try to come up with a clearer explanation.

I'm interested in this too. While I can see why it could be confusing to the audience if two characters are changing at the same time, I'm not sure whether fixing one of the two characters personalities as 'steadfast' is always best. But I'm only slightly knowledgable about the Dramatica theory.

I'll post my general views on the entries soon. I'm also open for any specific suggestions on how to improve my writing style, or on improving the writing for my character Chinu-a.

I voted. It wasn't counted.

---

For the line:

"A flower must bloom where two characters meet"

It means the creation of a semantic product due to the mutual transaction. It means that the two created something that is meaningful to both of them. It doesn't necessary mean that the two characters were changing. It is not directly related to steadfastness:

1) Shai and Anahata met, had a talk. Shai left.

2) Maiden and Monk met, had a talk. The maiden left a bell. The monk wished that it would echo even though it wasn't the bell he was looking for.

The encounter in situation 1 is meaningless to Anahata. Situation 2 exhibits a transaction, and the creation of semantic product due to the contrast of the two characters.

---

Re: Trapper zoid

Do you see anything wrong specifically about your writing style? (especially this part)

Quote:

His skills include an ability with medicines, and can heal minor wounds in battle. He is also an accomplished scout, and can survey a battleground before an attack. Although he does not know it, he is also a natural tactitian. He can offer sound battle planning advice if Shai is willing to hear it, although he will only offer it if he believes enough in both his abilities and in Shai's motives.

Quote:

Original post by Estok I voted. It wasn't counted.

How do you know that? You voted using the last round's format, right? That would be easy for TechnoGoth to have converted to the new round's format by simply taking the entries you ranked the top 3 as your vote.

Quote:

Original post by Estok Do you see anything wrong specifically about your writing style? (especially this part) Quote: His skills include an ability with medicines, and can heal minor wounds in battle. He is also an accomplished scout, and can survey a battleground before an attack. Although he does not know it, he is also a natural tactitian. He can offer sound battle planning advice if Shai is willing to hear it, although he will only offer it if he believes enough in both his abilities and in Shai's motives.

Sure I can [smile]. It's very dry and a bit too factual for most people's tastes when they think of creative writing. That's mostly because of my background; I write a lot, but it's all techincal writing (i.e. "In this paper, we present a new algorithm for performing X without the complications of Y"). But it's also because I think I had a different audience in mind from most people when I thought of writing a "character profile". The target audience for my piece is not the player, but the designers and writers. That's why the writing style is a bit too functional; I thought that was the best way of describing the character for my target audience. It's also why I wanted to write a backstory; I can write dry factual stuff, but interesting creative writing pieces is something I'm not good at. That's why I'm eagerly waiting the next few rounds where the audience will be different.