Talk:Permission

This page is duplicating a lot of information from Permission Giver. Can we see a way to merge them and keep the unique data from both? 86.152.90.113 09:15, 28 May 2008 (CDT)

Am I the only one who finds this a little ironic? Then again, I suppose it's for the best to avoid the possibility of recursion involved in dealing with PPC Badfic... RalphL 00:34, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Activity status
If we're going to denote activity, wouldn't it be much simpler and more useful to know who definitely IS active? Also, if you're going to mark it here, you have to mark it on the Permission Giver page, as well.

~Neshomeh 19:35, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

I forget how I got linked here, but I've removed the (most importantly the Permission Givers) from the "getting to know the PPCers" line. I really don't think the Permission Givers should be seen as more important than the rest of the community... really, even where Permission is concerned.

24.2.224.88 14:19, February 15, 2011 (UTC)!

Fair enough, but I'm more than a little uncomfortable with an anonymous person making decisions about our community&mdash;it's a bit contradictory, don't you think? Who are you, please?

~Neshomeh 17:51, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that'll teach me to edit without logging in. 'S VM. Sorry.

24.2.224.88 23:08, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Okay then. All's well. Thanks. {= )

~Neshomeh 23:34, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Permission 3.0.3.
(Well, the J&A-Cam-Bast-Thals 'just ask' was Version 1, the random-sample was Version 2... now we're into 3. The minor changes have bumped us from 3.0.1 - 'two random samples' - through 3.0.2 - 'two short samples' - to the current 'two longish samples'.)

Anyway, Permission 3.0.3 is now live. This wiki page is, well, a wiki page - any edits can be made directly to it. Any changes people thing are necessary for the doc can be discussed here or on the Board, or in the comments if you still know where the doc is. Both Neshomeh and I have editing access, so the changes should be made in fairly good time. Huinesoron (talk) 07:12, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Restructure?
Don't worry, I'm not thinking of revamping the process yet again... but how about this article? It's recently been classified as 'confusing', and I sort of see the point.

So I'm thinking, how about something like this: Lede

Why Permission?
Basically the current first section, possibly expanded with 'what PGs actually look for'.

Before your Permission Request
The stuff about introducing yourself, interacting on the Board, coming up with agents and getting comments on them. This might entail asking the Board whether we want people repeatedly posting agent profiles for comment or not.

Your Permission Request
The list, broken up into a series of sub-headings - bios (with the examples), writing samples (with full description and the link), badfic link (with advice on how to choose a good one).

After your Permission Request
Some notes about beta-readers, and editing after posting (which is a good thing to do if people point out problems).

The History of Permission
We don't have one of these yet, but I'm sure we can come up with something.

FAQs (shortened)
A lot of data in the FAQs can be inserted in much more concise form into the main text. This should be done.

This would make it really easy to figure out what's going on. At the moment, the 'your writing samples' in the 'what to include' section is a page away from actually telling you what those samples are; the bio examples are even worse.

So what does anyone think? Huinesoron (talk) 12:20, August 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced the article is actually confusing as-is, since we've had all of one person (who is self-admittedly confused a lot) say so, but this seems like a good idea regardless. I like the "before, during, and after" breakdown. Though, are you proposing to throw out the "Things to Avoid" and "Recommended Reading" sections, since you haven't included them here? I don't want to do that, and I think "What if I get rejected?" could be bundled into "Things to Avoid" as per your suggestion to incorporate info from the FAQ into the main article.


 * Rather than putting example writing samples and bios in the "Your Request" part, which could make it pretty unwieldy, maybe there could be a complete example Permission request or two included at the bottom of the article, or on a sub-page? It would still be some scrolling or a click away, but it would make the section itself smaller and therefore easier to read and less intimidating.


 * We should definitely put the link to the 36 prompts document in the "What to Include in a Permission Request" section, at least.


 * For whatever it's worth, I am getting very tired of people obsessively seeking feedback about their half-formed agent and story ideas. I mean, I don't want to tell anyone not to ask for feedback about ideas in the process of development, it's good to have a sounding board, but maybe it would be better manners to keep it to a small group of friends, off-Board, and not implicitly demand that we all pay attention to you on a frequent basis?


 * ~Neshomeh 19:41, August 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been vacillating on 'Things to Avoid'; on the one hand, it's just more WordsWordsWords, but on the other hand, the info in it can't really be back-integrated anywhere else neatly. So I guess it's best to keep it, pretty much where it is - as a fourth subsection under 'How to Get'. 'Recommended Reading' can stay where it is.


 * I agree that putting the samples/examples as a full demonstration is probably the best plan - but it needs to be linked. Unless I missed it, currently the only way to find the examples is by deciding to read my rather strangely-titled FAq. In general, most interlinking is one of my goals - ideally, all of the leftover FAQs should be linked back to sections (possibly via a small 'see also'.


 * For the agent ideas - the implicit demands is what bothers me, too (kind of like that 'I don't think I'm going to get Permission but I'm going to ask anyway' comes across as a demand that a PG review your work, even though other people are way better at it than me). So I'm wondering: is there any possible way we can encourage this sort of behaviour? Both the posting and the responding, obviously. Because I think that would be a fantastic way to do things. The main problem is that it's not experienced community members posting these profiles - it's new members, who we can't instruct in advance... Huinesoron (talk) 06:24, August 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to admit I have zero sympathy for anyone who doesn't read the whole article. Regardless of where the information is located or whether it's explicitly referenced in previous sections, it is on the page for a reason. No matter how well we structure the page, we can't do anything for people who don't bother to read it fully. Anyway, the FAQ section should make it easier to find answers to specific questions. You can see the questions immediately when you look at the table of contents, after all.


 * Speaking of which, I meant to say this before and forgot: I suggest that we keep the entire FAQ section and incorporate as much as possible into the main article (and yes, linking is good). The fewer excuses for not coming across the information, the better.


 * I dunno if a wiki blog is the best way to seek feedback, either, if only because there aren't that many of us who would notice when a wiki blog is updated and even fewer who would actually respond. (If I'm not going to do it on the Board, I'm even less likely to do it here, where I probably came with the intention of doing certain specific things.) Ideally, I feel that people should seek alpha-level feedback from their friends, fellow-Boarders or otherwise. Maybe you don't have non-Boarder friends willing or able to help, but if you're not making any friends on the Board, there are probably bigger problems than pure writing ability&mdash;either you simply haven't been here long enough/interacted enough to find people you like and vice versa (and therefore probably not enough to get Permission, either), or quite possibly you are annoying.


 * Maybe that's not fair, I don't know. But I think I feel the same way about this practice as I do about crowdsourced beta-reading. It demands attention, and it's sort of an insult to your eventual readers and the creative process itself. I can't quite put my finger on the latter, but I wouldn't go around asking everyone for help with my ideas, because they're my ideas, and I need to be the one to bring them to fruition. If I'm stuck on a particular point, I'll ask a friend or two to listen to the problem and help me work it out, but it's still my work to do, not theirs. And, if I'm getting stuck all the time, maybe the idea just sucks and I should drop it...?


 * ~Neshomeh 15:38, August 11, 2014 (UTC)