Aquinas wrote:How about positing that originally, way back in time, it was considered "First World Nations" were nations which were significant colonial powers (eg. Indrala, Luthori & co.), "Second World Nations" were nations which were not significant colonial powers but were not subject to colonial rule themselves, and "Third World Nations" were nations which were subject to colonial rule for all or most of the time.
Then lets say that at some point later, someone at least vaguely famous (maybe Philippus T. Kruger, the first ever General Secretary of the World Congress when it was formed in 4113?) wrote a book called The Three Worlds, decrying the fact that a few nations in Terra seemed to hold most of the power and privilege (the "First World"), a second-tier of nations held some independence but had little influence over their own or the world's destiny (the "Second World") and a great mass of nations lived in abject poverty and were completely helpless to control their fate (the "Third World"). And lets say that since then, this has been the generally assumed definition of The Three Worlds.
CCP wrote:Some terms don't have discernible origins. Not every phrase enters popular usage by a traceable historical route. Some sayings just get widely used, and no one remembers why.
Instead of retconning a fabricated history through a meta process, an academic character could simply trace the IC history of the term's usage. When the historical (forum) record runs out, the academic could just say the term's earlier origins are uncertain.
That is the truth after all, ICly anyway.
Aquinas wrote:CCP wrote:Some terms don't have discernible origins. Not every phrase enters popular usage by a traceable historical route. Some sayings just get widely used, and no one remembers why.
Instead of retconning a fabricated history through a meta process, an academic character could simply trace the IC history of the term's usage. When the historical (forum) record runs out, the academic could just say the term's earlier origins are uncertain.
That is the truth after all, ICly anyway.
In general terms, I would be cautious about relying on the forum as a source of information for in-game history, because we've already had issues with threads being removed, and the Moderators have been talking about wanting to have even more taken out as well.
CCP wrote:Aquinas wrote:CCP wrote:Some terms don't have discernible origins. Not every phrase enters popular usage by a traceable historical route. Some sayings just get widely used, and no one remembers why.
Instead of retconning a fabricated history through a meta process, an academic character could simply trace the IC history of the term's usage. When the historical (forum) record runs out, the academic could just say the term's earlier origins are uncertain.
That is the truth after all, ICly anyway.
In general terms, I would be cautious about relying on the forum as a source of information for in-game history, because we've already had issues with threads being removed, and the Moderators have been talking about wanting to have even more taken out as well.
Thank you for sharing with us what you would do. But in general terms, it's obviously besides the point.
Moderators during your tenure deleted several Party Orgs and Treaties, some containing significant amounts of game history. Game bills holding many volumes of game history are un-searchable and often can only be accessed with great tedium. Even the wiki must be taken with a grain of salt since heavily edited articles can mislead unsuspecting readers, especially those not given to analyzing an article's history page. And an incalculable amount of game history was lost when the TakeForum went offline.
None of that means we're forced to retcon every question mark. Sometimes an unknown is okay, and may even give rise to interesting fluid RP that a fully-plotted retcon couldn't match.
Aquinas wrote:You made a comment about using the forum to dig through history.
Aquinas wrote:I'm not quite sure what the argument is you're trying to pick here.
Aquinas wrote:But anyway, this has nothing to do with the topic
Aquinas wrote:so I'll be stopping here
Aquinas wrote:but do feel free to pm if you want to continue.
CCP wrote:Some terms don't have discernible origins. Not every phrase enters popular usage by a traceable historical route. Some sayings just get widely used, and no one remembers why.
Instead of retconning a fabricated history through a meta process, an academic character could simply trace the IC history of the term's usage. When the historical (forum) record runs out, the academic could just say the term's earlier origins are uncertain.
That is the truth after all, ICly anyway.
jamescfm wrote:it was created by the Role Play Team. Having spoken to at least one of the team that first introduced it
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests