Addenda: turn length and due date
Turns are one week long and book descriptions are due each Tuesday. Players who are unable to turn in a book description in a given week may either miss their turn or turn in an additional book description the following week.

On the rules:
I like the proposed rule quite a bit.

I think in my original attempt at drafting the rules, I specified that one had to cite one already written book, one existing phantom, and one new phantom with each book after the first; the next-to-last cites one phantom of either type, and the last cites no phantoms, to balance out. And the first entry just has two cites, one of each, since there are no existing books to cite. And seeded phantoms are treated the same as plain old phantoms, I think.

Also, there's a further restriction possible: one must select a phantom on a shelf if one is available, and not an empty slot. But I'm not sure how that would be affected by the seeding, so maybe not.

That works better
Citing 2 new phantoms each time would fill up all the empty slots pretty quickly. Only citing one new phantom each time means that there will be empty slots further into the game, which I think is definitely preferable. I've altered the proposed rules to have that as the specified version.

I think we should probably not do the "You must fill in a phantom on the shelf if it exists" rule, since the library structure may be better served by having slightly more entries with relatively few links (and those are more likely to be created if it is easier to choose to use up an empty slot by writing its entry rather than by sticking a phantom in it).

A minor limitation to the proposed rule:
Since the last two shelves (17 and 18) represent the miniature books inside Perdix' trunk, it would be very difficult if not impossible to swap a book from the regular library for them. Therefore, they're either off-limits to the swap (my preference), or can only swap books between each other (from 17 to 18, or vice versa, but not 5 to 17).

Dibbsing, phantoms & referencing.
Hear, hear to all that, Charles & Kip.

This is what I had in mind for the above (D,P&R), does it sound good?

Use "y" in Ph? column to refer to books that have been cited. Leave seed books as they are.

Call dibs on an existing phantom by putting your scholar's id in the scholar slot. Leave Ph? column as "y" until full entry has been created. Change to "n" once entry has been added.

Use shelf number and position on shelf as code for referenced books. Eg Blue book of Lem would be "1b". Enter this code (as live link to phantom or real entry) in the Ref1, etc. column of the book in which it is cited.

It's possible all this info won't be necessary, but it will make it easier to know what's been done already at a glance.

And, can I call dibs on a slot yet? I know which shelf I want to shelve my first book onto.

Yeah, we'd better call slots now.
If we're going to post our first books on Tuesday, it would make sense. To that end, I'd like to call Shelf 11, Slot 2, unless Barry or Emily wants it.

That's cool, Kip. I want Shel
That's cool, Kip. I want Shelf 9, slot 2.

One possible hiccup.
Let's say both Barry and I independantly decide we're going to reference one of the phantoms, say the Touccian tome, this turn. Only he calls it by one title, and I call it by another.

And in the course of typing it out, several answers spring to mind. Of course books are given different titles by different people, especially at this stage of publishing technology. If there's no possible way to reconcile, we could "bounce" one of the cites to an empty slot. Or note that one of the cites (consensus, or privilege the bounce by the priority of selecting books for that turn) refers to a similar book not in the Nimas (Nimus?) Animæ library. Or, or, or. Shouldn't come up too often if at all, and there's a number of ways to handle it, so it shouldn't be much of a problem at all.

Benefit of the table
I guess it means you should post your phantoms to the table before you post your book description. That way when you go to post your description, and you go to the table to enter your phantoms, you will fill in a blank slot. When Barry then comes to fill in his phantom (which he had planned to place in the slot you just took), he will have to choose another slot. The only place I could see this being a problem is if someone wants to put a book on Perdyx's shelves, but those shelves are filled up just before they go to the table. However, since Perdyx also has normal sized books, a book Perdyx owns doesn't have to be shelved inside the box.

Honestly...
I don't think we need to go to that much trouble. Maybe toward the end, when it gets crowded, and collisions are more likely—but the number of phantoms should remain stable, right? (Each post cites one and creates one.) So the likelihood of hitting the same phantom will remain small and stable until the end. And I think ad hoccing any collisions that might happen—allowing for happy accidents—is maybe better than having a rule in place beforehand.

I don't know that it is a trouble
We have to fill in our phantoms on the table at some point.

But, yes, the chance of collision is small enough (and easy enough to fix) that it can be handled ad hoc.

Unless Barry wants it...
I'll call shelf 8, slot 3, a Lemmish text on Animal.

The problem could only arise
The problem could only arise with the unnamed seeded books, right? Any phantoms we create will be named, and if two of us happen to choose the same empty slot, one can just pick another, no harm.

So, I think it would make sense to call dibs on referencing the seed books by naming them when you cite them as Charles suggested, doing it right away, not waiting for Tuesday.

Then we can all see that it's already been mapped out by someone, and if we can find another tome to refer to if we need to, or switch the name we made up to the other persons if we like it better than our idea (I can see it happening). I'd be in favor of this.

There's no problem with duplicate references to the same phantom volume is there? I believe I recall somewhere in our discussions it being said that that was fine.

No problem with dupe cites, I don't think.
Though rules elsewhere are mummish on this score. —And again, I don't think we need to dibs 'em beforehand: I like the happy accidents we might have to clean up afterwards, and again—books are going to have more than one title, sometimes. And the unamed seeded books will get named and described whether in a cite or by having an entry written, one way or another.

I mention this because sometimes in the course of writing I (for instance) might find that I can't really work in that cite to the Lemmish mentem text like I'd thought, but I can cite, oh, something else. With the rule in place, I'd have to swap it out (and know precisely what I'm going to do beforehand, more to the point). Without the rule, it's more, shall we say, laissez-faire.

So my preference is not to call cites along with shelf slots beforehand. But I'm willing to bend, if need be.

Ah, I see. I'm not against th
Ah, I see. I'm not against the idea of multiple titles, but the citations might wildly clash. I'd be willing to give it a try ad hoc and reassess if it becomes a problem.

Would it work for you Kip if it was an optional rule? So we could each implement it or not as desired. That might mean you'd pre-emptively get cut out of slots that otherwise would be negotiated equally after the fact.

Which books are we banned from writing up?
In my first entry, I directly referenced 3 books, 2 old phantoms (the Blue and Blank Books), and one new phantom. Am I forbidden from writing up any of those books, or am I only forbidden from writing up the new phantom?

Hmm.
I'd say you'd be blocked from using one old and one new, since on this first round we're only enjoined to make two citations, and that you'd pick which ones you'd be blocked from, and those would be the cites listed in the library table.

Of course, I just realized I used two old phantoms. I can move Scolopax' book on Wendellian herbam, to make a new phantom and free up that old herbam phantom, if it is so desired.

Shelf 14b.

I’m claiming 14b for round 3, and I get first pick, so ha! —The only hitch might be if that’s the one Barry’s got for round 2. In which case, ah, well.

A Day late
My book is going to be a day late. I sincerely hope to have it done tomorrow evening.

Sorry.

ditto
Same here. Sorry I didn't dibs a shelf either.

Two days late
I decided my entry required that I write up some material on Rollin and the Touccian Obligation, and now it is 3am, and I still don't have my write up (which is not of Rollin's Laying the Foundations) written up. So it will be 2 days late instead of one.

Again, sorry.

’Sall right.
Especially if it’s The Gardens of Ægidius you’re writing.

uh huh
Yes, whatever you've got cooking looks yummy.

Sadly
All that was pretty much a total tangent.

Now my curiosity is piqued.
That’s it really. Title says it all. Nothing more to add here. Nope. Nosirree...

something in the air.
I just realized that Arxarva is Rollin's great-grand-filia. Interesting.

More than just that
Apparently, we were both thinking about the nature of Bethelionite juvenalia this week.

currents
Funny how things like that happen. : )

flaws
Also, all so far have been about flawed texts, or at least fairly negative reviews of the texts.

I had a distinct feeling that I needed to do so after my 2 other favorable reviews, sort of doing pacing for quality. Didn't surprise me to see that in the other books.

Did you have a similar impulse? Perhaps an instinct for self inflicted adversity that free-forming instills? Or was it coincidence?

Negative Reviews
Looking back, it seems like all of my reviews have been somewhat negative, or at least very mixed. For both the Concordance for the Birds and Whither the Wind, this is definitely self-inflicted adversity, since both books were written by my characters. I've actually always imagined Whither the Wind as being a really good book: beautifully written and with some seriously impressive original insights for an apprentice. I just couldn't imagine my Circulan reviewer being willing to talk favorably about a book by an apprentice, particularly a Derlethian.

Mine wasn’t really negative.

I mean, I was also trying to figure out a way not to be so relentlessly upbeat about everything (and boy do I feel silly for raving about one of my character’s books. Literary Mary-Suing…), but still, the most recent one is really a note to get you to read the Horreum. It’s just that it’s disguised as a diss of the Circulus.

"...relentlessly upbeat.."
Yeah, I think that's just what I meant. This internal urge to break things up even when you don't "have" to. It's like when you're slacking at work & suddenly you think "I should do some work!" even when nobody's checking up on you. : )

I like the idea of you Mary-Suing about Elias. What kind of Sue would he be? The Gothier than Thou-Sue? Elvira Sue? No, too sexy. Hm. Emily Sue perhaps, for Emily Strange?

Shelf 12b.
For round 4, that is. Unless Charles wants it?

13a
I think I want to do 13a, the dark history thang. Unless someone else has priority. I'm not clear on the order of iniative, though I recall it was posted somewhere.

I belive the book I'm writing up will apply. If there any aver after I write it I'll be happy to move it to another shelf.

10d
I'll take useful spells for happy families and dissolved apprentices.

Aheh.
It’s Thursday? Already? —I’m working on it, honest. Tonight, maybe. And it looks like maybe Emily and I at least are on the same wavelength again...

?
And it looks like maybe Emily and I at least are on the same wavelength again...
Timewise or topicwise? Ah, you're referring to my quintillican question perhaps. : ) I'm finding the process of figuring out what to write & by whom it was written to be fascinating. The creative constraints of the archives are fabulous to work with. So rich.

Timewise: I'm sorry I'm late--it's the end of the semester & I've been buried in well-procrastinated work. But at least we are all together in it!

dibs revised
Unless Barry had an eye on it, I think I'll switch my book to 11c (?) the "rather suspect book". Think that's more appropriate.

Glmp
Likewise (the time thing, not the wavelength).

I'm off on some wavelength with Smaragda and Onyx, I think. The humourous after-effects of subtle, far reaching curses.

tomorrow?
Hey, I think I'm on track to do an entry by tomorrow. Any chance we can get back on board together having skipped a week?

I was gonna have mine up yesterday—
But, um, well. Yeah. Tomorrow. I like that.

tomorrow
Definitely.

Or not
I just am not getting this finished tonight.

Sorry.

Tomorrow.

Me too
But today!

No new book tonight (obviously)
I just spent the last 2 hours on work stuff and I'm exhausted.

Tomorrow night.

Serenity
Okay, when I said Tomorrow, I'd forgotten that I was going to go see serenity, and I hadn't realized that going to see Serenity would last from 8:30 pm to 12:30 pm.

Anyway, its really good (Serenity, that is), and I'll have my book in tonight.

delay
Looks like the black book will have to wait. I'll put mine in after I get back from a wknd trip--another week delay, ah, well.