Liber Discussion Series: Categorization

[Apothete]

I would like to preface this post by stating that this is in no way sanctioned by the Lexicanums or the Codiciers, and that there is no official discussion thread that I am aware of at this time. That being said, I think that it could be valuable for us to gather as a community at times and share our views on topics that either are not addressed overtly or which have become a matter of hearsay and unspoken convention. If this thread is out of line or needs to be moved elsewhere, I'm sure that the moderators will see that it's taken care of or let me know.

 

Now, on to the meat of things.

 

As I'm sure that everyone who has spent more than a cursory period of time around here is aware, the general focus amongst our regulars seems to be critiquing the raw ideas and presented Chapters of others in order to help them better fit the template that was laid down by Games Workshop's own Liber Astartes articles. There are prevailing schools of thought and well-known biases against certain conventions and highly trod tropes, as well as certain structural guidelines that have their roots in the print-based Platonic form which we all seek to emulate. I've certainly found myself acting as a self-appointed custodian and keeper of these many traditions which we seem to generally hold as sacrosanct, doing my best to help enforce our communal will while seeking to improve my own writing. Through commentary both positive and negative, social pressure of having multiple "authorities" weighing in upon contentious issues, and the citation of the often incomplete or contentious material which forms the backbone of this universe, we attempt to make a harmonious whole from which we can then conjure interesting variations which still seem plausible.

 

However, during my brief hiatus, I found myself contemplating some of the objections which have been leveled both at me and at some of the other writers who have put themselves before the firing squad. Why is it that we dedicate ourselves only to the writing of Index Astartes articles?

 

To be sure, monolithic blocks of text are going to be enough to send many readers running from the thread and meaningful commentary something which is going to require much more time and effort of those who seek to help the author. As well, there are many things which might seem incredibly interesting to the writer but which are either less intriguing to the audience or not necessary for the sort of overview that we have apparently chosen as our modus operandi. Some of the projects that have sprung up here take on lives of their own and spawn a community following, such as Commisar Molotov's Castigators and the Astartes Vocates (also his fault), but there seems to be a void between the relatively terse decription beneath the board's name in the forum headings and its current form.

 

If this is the place for textual information about our homebrewed Chapters, and the subject matter does not more properly belong under modeling (PCA forums) or stories (Liber Comniscor), should we not also allow or even encourage the pursuit of ambitious projects? It's certainly true that nobody is bound to read every word that another person comes up with, and it could be that there wouldn't be enough interest to bear out additional emphasis on more complete attempts to catalog the character of our creations. However, I think it is possible that there could very well be room for such things here. Witness the people who wish to place custom rules, special characters, and other elements which have made their appearances in the official Index Astartes writeups for evidence of this claim.

 

To that end, I propose a possible system of labeling writeups that would clearly indicate ones' intent for a thread.

 

The divisions would be as follows:

• WT - Working Thread - If one has an idea but not enough material to begin a writeup and seeks commentary on viability, stylistic issues, or other elements which are more akin to brainstorming than to a presentable writeup. This type of thread can later be edited to become a different type of writeup, leaving the suggestion and development process plainly visible while not tying up visible threads on the front page through use of multiple postings for a single Chapter.
  
• IA - Index Astartes - Just as they are currently intended, the Index Astartes writeup attempts to distill all that is noteworthy about a Chapter into a concise but informative and flavorful summary. History and beliefs, organization and homeworld... These are the things that anyone who wishes to know about your Chapter must grasp, but they're not going to have to immerse themselves in the information in order to understand. When done properly, a reader can know all the important aspects without needing to spend an afternoon absorbing and winnowing the detail.
  
• CC - Codex Capitolum - More detailed than an Index Astartes because they include elements which are not strictly necessary to the base understanding of a Chapter, a Codex Capitolum may contain longer passages or subchapters that allow for a writer to spend more time developing ideas which they find interesting. Though not an appropriate place for actually developing custom rules or characters, this is the only writeup in which they would likely be considered a fitting addition. It would also likely be the only writeup in which it would be suitable to pursue lines of fiction, perhaps through links to material posted in the Liber Comnoscor.
  

 

That's the most basic form of my thoughts, but I don't want to get too far into things without giving others a chance to comment. Does this seem like a worthwhile distinction to be making? Am I overlooking something or reading too much into the replies we all give?

 

Comments and critique are, as always, welcome.

[Guest Mordray]

Personally I find this to be a welcome idea and one long in coming.

 

The idea of using thread abbreviations is an especially useful idea (assuming we can get others to use them) as it makes it easier to at a glance see what the general mood in a thread is going to be. IA's generally seem to be about stripping stuff out, rewording and general grammar and spelling. WT's are where I find more enjoyment as in that I can help.

 

CC's would be a much welcome idea as well as I personally am often left wanting more information then a simple IA can provide. While an IA can give a general overview it often falls short in providing sufficient information on a chapter to sate my drive for information. Especially relating to homeworlds and those who inhabit them. I find that the homeworld section is natoriously small and provides limited at best information about what should be a defining point for a chapter... just how much of the world's culture has infiltrate the chapter's beliefs? What are the notable kinds of fauna and flora? ... I could go on and on...

 

Translation we need to get this implemented now!

[Ferrata]

Thread Tagging - I've generally always been against this from a Moderator point of view. There is only one occassion when Tagging or set thread nomenculture has been used to great extent - the old Army List forum (before it was seperated) under ironloki. The basic idea was each thread would have the following styled title Codex [style]; for example [1500] Dark Angels [Power Gamer]. This worked for a while, but I remember ironloki stating that much of his time was spent fixing peoples' titles - to be honest, something I do not wish to do. Thread Tagging only works when you have a number of long-term dedicated posters who constantly create new threads - but Liber sees a majority of the new threads started by new posters. Many of these posters will not read the DIY Guide (which is beneficial to them) nevermind a forum-standard of thread naming. If such an idea was implamented, most threads would still be named whatever the user wishes without any tag. Yes, in a perfect world a tagging system would be nice but it is almost impossible to implament.

 

Why is it that we dedicate ourselves only to the writing of Index Astartes articles?

We don't - simple as. It is just that Index Astartes articles have proven time after time that they, on average, are the best way to present a chapter in sufficient detail to gather a true flavour of the chapter whilst still remaining readable. There are other methods which have been used well in the past; mainly Inquisitorial Reports and stories. The only problem with these is they often go into too much detail for a reader to be bothered to read. Even IA's of 5000+ words often turn away readers - and as writers that is why we post our chapters,;to get readers.

 

Lack of Major Projects - There was a time when big, group projects were all the rage. We had Adeptus Aegyptus, Adeptus Dracos, The Gallen Campaign (iirc), The Chapters' of Farthing Wood, Astartes Vocates. To a project, these have fallen through. This is not a comment on their leaders or the communities ability to develop such projects - it is just a fact. Such projects require a number of people with the drive and determinination to complete the project. There is currently one Mega-Project going on (Aurelius Rex's Alternative Heresy) - and I have no doubt that Rex will complete it, though at his speed it might take him a while (:lol:). If you wish to start a project such as those above, there is nothing stopping you. It is nice to ask the Forum Moderator first (not to gain permission but more to inform him of your intent).

[commander alexander]

Im new to writing chapter fluff, general DIYing, and this forum(IA). I have read the DIY guide, and I think its a good idea. I dont neccesarily want to click on a chapter article that sounds very intriguing, only to find its a CC class article, especially if its eleven, and im so intriuged I have to read till 1:00 am :lol: ...... Also, I have just started a WT, so I want people willing to contribute to look at it, not someone looking for an evening read.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

The divisions would be as follows:

• WT - Working Thread - If one has an idea but not enough material to begin a writeup and seeks commentary on viability, stylistic issues, or other elements which are more akin to brainstorming than to a presentable writeup. This type of thread can later be edited to become a different type of writeup, leaving the suggestion and development process plainly visible while not tying up visible threads on the front page through use of multiple postings for a single Chapter.
  
• IA - Index Astartes - Just as they are currently intended, the Index Astartes writeup attempts to distill all that is noteworthy about a Chapter into a concise but informative and flavorful summary. History and beliefs, organization and homeworld... These are the things that anyone who wishes to know about your Chapter must grasp, but they're not going to have to immerse themselves in the information in order to understand. When done properly, a reader can know all the important aspects without needing to spend an afternoon absorbing and winnowing the detail.
  
• CC - Codex Capitolum - More detailed than an Index Astartes because they include elements which are not strictly necessary to the base understanding of a Chapter, a Codex Capitolum may contain longer passages or subchapters that allow for a writer to spend more time developing ideas which they find interesting. Though not an appropriate place for actually developing custom rules or characters, this is the only writeup in which they would likely be considered a fitting addition. It would also likely be the only writeup in which it would be suitable to pursue lines of fiction, perhaps through links to material posted in the Liber Comnoscor.
  

 

Whilst I don't think tagging threads is a good idea (Ferrata summed it up well), I think you could be onto something here. I don't see Working Threads as anything more than an Index Astartes in its earliest stages, but Codicies Capitolums could be interesting. Almost a Director's Cut version of Index Astartes articles, where you don't have to worry about length, relevance to the Chapter and what the reader might think - you just put in everything you ever wanted to say about the Chapter. I don't think it would be a good idea to tag threads like this, but maybe as a new type of Librarium article?

[Apothete]

Personally I find this to be a welcome idea and one long in coming.

 

The idea of using thread abbreviations is an especially useful idea (assuming we can get others to use them) as it makes it easier to at a glance see what the general mood in a thread is going to be. IA's generally seem to be about stripping stuff out, rewording and general grammar and spelling. WT's are where I find more enjoyment as in that I can help.

 

You seem to have immediately caught on to one of my core intentions with even bringing this up, because it seems that people have differing levels of engagement and intimidation, to say nothing of personal interest.

 

While I find it interesting to sit down and write out a full reply to someone's work, it can often eat up an hour or more of my time and isn't the kind of thing that appeals to everyone. Some like to come in and have a relatively brief, light discussion on the basic elements of the work in question, and others like Telveryon, Octavulg, and I will descend upon a writeup like an Adeptus Terra purge team in the library. Tagging might make it easy to see upon browsing titles just what might be suitable to your interest levels, or at least to hint in that direction.

 

CC's would be a much welcome idea as well as I personally am often left wanting more information then a simple IA can provide. While an IA can give a general overview it often falls short in providing sufficient information on a chapter to sate my drive for information. Especially relating to homeworlds and those who inhabit them. I find that the homeworld section is natoriously small and provides limited at best information about what should be a defining point for a chapter... just how much of the world's culture has infiltrate the chapter's beliefs? What are the notable kinds of fauna and flora? ... I could go on and on...

 

That's exactly why I proposed a new naming convention.

 

Thread Tagging - I've generally always been against this from a Moderator point of view. There is only one occassion when Tagging or set thread nomenculture has been used to great extent - the old Army List forum (before it was seperated) under ironloki. The basic idea was each thread would have the following styled title Codex [style]; for example [1500] Dark Angels [Power Gamer]. This worked for a while, but I remember ironloki stating that much of his time was spent fixing peoples' titles - to be honest, something I do not wish to do. Thread Tagging only works when you have a number of long-term dedicated posters who constantly create new threads - but Liber sees a majority of the new threads started by new posters. Many of these posters will not read the DIY Guide (which is beneficial to them) nevermind a forum-standard of thread naming. If such an idea was implamented, most threads would still be named whatever the user wishes without any tag. Yes, in a perfect world a tagging system would be nice but it is almost impossible to implament.

 

This is a fair point and definitely something which I was hoping to see, in that it represents the experience and views of posters who have been a part of the board longer than I have. However, I think that you're reading a little more into what I was suggesting than what I actually meant to have there.

 

The whole point of a convention like this is to establish the same kind of unspoken tradition that seems to get soaked up by newcomers who are even cursorily aware of the board's current state, much as I learned to format articles from reading Commisar Molotov and other writers' work. It wouldn't be a formal rule or something which had to be enforced, or at least not as I had envisioned it, but rather a voluntary system of classification by which people could help channel the interest of the community through clear self-representation. Far be it for me to try and force anyone else do what it is I find helpful! It just seemed that there might be an opening for additional labels and article types aside from the all-pervasive Index Astartes that even the absolutely newest posters somehow seem to understand, though I believe that's in part because of Games Workshop and also partly because it's what we often have on our front page.

 

We don't - simple as. It is just that Index Astartes articles have proven time after time that they, on average, are the best way to present a chapter in sufficient detail to gather a true flavour of the chapter whilst still remaining readable. There are other methods which have been used well in the past; mainly Inquisitorial Reports and stories. The only problem with these is they often go into too much detail for a reader to be bothered to read. Even IA's of 5000+ words often turn away readers - and as writers that is why we post our chapters,;to get readers.

 

Agreed on all points, much to my chagrin. I'm one of the writers who has to struggle to keep their IA articles under control, since I wax loquacious more often than not. That's why I think that a system like this could have its uses, though I still readily bow to your greater experience of the Bolter and Chainsword's past.

 

Whilst I don't think tagging threads is a good idea (Ferrata summed it up well), I think you could be onto something here. I don't see Working Threads as anything more than an Index Astartes in its earliest stages, but Codicies Capitolums could be interesting. Almost a Director's Cut version of Index Astartes articles, where you don't have to worry about length, relevance to the Chapter and what the reader might think - you just put in everything you ever wanted to say about the Chapter. I don't think it would be a good idea to tag threads like this, but maybe as a new type of Librarium article?

 

If I'm completely honest about my motivations for creating this thread, the biggest element that I was interested in would be the Codex Capitolus. I'm in agreement that Index Astartes writeups should be relatively concise and convey what's necessary, but I also feel the sting of the too-wordy author who wants somewhere to put their work that it can still garner additional criticism. There's always personal blogs or websites, but they're generally not going to get much in the way of feedback from the community.

 

I truly believe that at least some form of the more detailed writing would make it far easier for a certain kind of author to then cut from their Index Astartes, so long as the material could be rescued for use in a more detailed work. This thread was meant to see if others agreed and what form they thought it should take, and you might be right that the Librarium is a better home for them.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

The whole point of a convention like this is to establish the same kind of unspoken tradition that seems to get soaked up by newcomers who are even cursorily aware of the board's current state, much as I learned to format articles from reading Commisar Molotov and other writers' work. It wouldn't be a formal rule or something which had to be enforced, or at least not as I had envisioned it, but rather a voluntary system of classification by which people could help channel the interest of the community through clear self-representation.

 

Do you mean in the same way that threads are "tagged" by the original poster here as Inquisition, Grey Knights, Deathwatch etc. to identify themselves?

[Apothete]

Do you mean in the same way that threads are "tagged" by the original poster here as Inquisition, Grey Knights, Deathwatch etc. to identify themselves?

 

That's very similar, yes.

[Telveryon]

The idea is rather nice, however tagging isn't exactly necessary. I have already used so called Working Threads for both of my chapters, it was practically a necessity given how far off the beaten track they are, but I simply stated in the thread's title or subtitle that it was only a concept and not a full IA. As for the Codex Capitolus, well it's pretty much just a very detailed IA. If you want a great level of detail, there is no rule in the Liber that says you can't. Removal of details is done only through outside pressure, but then again, none is forcing you to remove anything.

 

On the other hand, the use of such tags would clarify things a fair bit.

 

Also, just to go a bit off topic here...

 

Thread Tagging - I've generally always been against this from a Moderator point of view. There is only one occassion when Tagging or set thread nomenculture has been used to great extent - the old Army List forum (before it was seperated) under ironloki. The basic idea was each thread would have the following styled title Codex [style]; for example [1500] Dark Angels [Power Gamer]. This worked for a while, but I remember ironloki stating that much of his time was spent fixing peoples' titles - to be honest, something I do not wish to do. Thread Tagging only works when you have a number of long-term dedicated posters who constantly create new threads - but Liber sees a majority of the new threads started by new posters. Many of these posters will not read the DIY Guide (which is beneficial to them) nevermind a forum-standard of thread naming. If such an idea was implamented, most threads would still be named whatever the user wishes without any tag. Yes, in a perfect world a tagging system would be nice but it is almost impossible to implament.

Actually, enforcing tagging could be achieved by modifying the board software by adding a prefix and suffix dropdown boxes. These prefix and suffix boxes could be made mandatory or optional based on the board type. I for one am fairly certain that such modification could be implemented in 2 or 3 days by a skilled programmer who knows his way around the code. But then again I might be wrong since I have no idea how the board code looks like...

[Ferrata]

Actually, enforcing tagging could be achieved by modifying the board software by adding a prefix and suffix dropdown boxes. These prefix and suffix boxes could be made mandatory or optional based on the board type. I for one am fairly certain that such modification could be implemented in 2 or 3 days by a skilled programmer who knows his way around the code. But then again I might be wrong since I have no idea how the board code looks like...

Neither do I - Moderators don't deal with the coding of the board; that's all Brother Argos.