Being picky... Galnet writing style - professionallism

GluttonyFang

GluttonyFang
Renegade Roach said:
I suspect that the only people who care that CODE have dropped PP are CODE.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we earned enough infamy for people outside of the syndicate to care, not everyone of course.

I honestly did not believe the article was going to be published at all, so that was a surprise to us. We could do better, if we knew for sure that it was going to be a selected piece.
 

Renegade Roach

R
GluttonyFang said:
Pretty sure we earned enough infamy for people outside of the syndicate to care, not everyone of course.

I honestly did not believe the article was going to be published at all, so that was a surprise to us. We could do better, if we knew for sure that it was going to be a selected piece.
Click to expand...

To be fair I was a bit harsh. Don't actually have anything against you guys at all, but felt that a 'somebody stopped doing something because they thought it wasn't fun' story wasn't very interesting. On the actual writing, surely the thing to do is make it great before you submit not say 'we could do better, if we knew...it was going to be selected'? Galnet needs some character and humour in its pieces and it'd be great to see that coming from player groups like CODE. There's plenty of space for you guys to portray the characterisation you're going for, just up the quality. Hope that was a little more constructive ;)
 

lefty1117

L
It's not just the CODE article, that's just an example. Much of the fan submitted stuff is easy to discern because it's just not professionally written. It's not their fault of course, they aren't professionals. What annoys me more is that these things can get posted into Galnet and it's hard to believe that they are actually part of in-game lore. But presumably, by being posted on Galnet, they are. An example from maybe a month or two ago was a Galnet article about a new Power arising in Hudson space - it was a player group but the way it was worded made it look like there was actually going to be a new Power created from some Hudson systems.

It all just feels a bit Star Wars EU-ish, if you follow - fiction created in the game universe that does not necessarily tie into or make sense against the main "canon", or maybe is not quite believeable - disjointed.
 
Last edited:

Cadoc

Cadoc
Renegade Roach said:
To be fair I was a bit harsh. Don't actually have anything against you guys at all, but felt that a 'somebody stopped doing something because they thought it wasn't fun' story wasn't very interesting.
Click to expand...

In the context of Powerplay that can still be very significant news. See Torval's huge drop in activity and tumble down the rankings once EIC withdrew their support.
 

Lobstris

Lobstris
To be fair, at least the Code article was terrible, but readable and mildly amusing. Far more immersion killing is the PowerPlay update article talking about projected 'CC' for each faction. I mean, what the hell is 'CC'? It's an abstract metagame concept that really has no place in a news article. Couldn't that kind of thing be shoved under a PowerPlay tab somewhere to be ignored?
 

Cadoc

Cadoc
Lobstris said:
To be fair, at least the Code article was terrible, but readable and mildly amusing. Far more immersion killing is the PowerPlay update article talking about projected 'CC' for each faction. I mean, what the hell is 'CC'? It's an abstract metagame concept that really has no place in a news article. Couldn't that kind of thing be shoved under a PowerPlay tab somewhere to be ignored?
Click to expand...

That's actually a very tricky thing to get a handle on. I write those weekly "A Week in Powerplay" posts, and I'm never quite sure where the line is. Should I be writing about "Powers" and "Powerplay", or are those entirely meta terms? How do you talk IC about events like... Imperials constantly attacking Federation space, where that clearly goes against established game lore? It's hard to reconcile some of this stuff with what we know about the Elite universe, or maybe it's just that I don't really understand how Powerplay slots into it all.
 

lefty1117

L
Cadoc said:
That's actually a very tricky thing to get a handle on. I write those weekly "A Week in Powerplay" posts, and I'm never quite sure where the line is. Should I be writing about "Powers" and "Powerplay", or are those entirely meta terms? How do you talk IC about events like... Imperials constantly attacking Federation space, where that clearly goes against established game lore? It's hard to reconcile some of this stuff with what we know about the Elite universe, or maybe it's just that I don't really understand how Powerplay slots into it all.
Click to expand...

It's a good point Cadoc. I interpret those weekly "impending galactic rankings" galnet postings to be describing poll results, or in other words the Powerplay rankings within the game setting are akin to poll rankings from a committee that does such things (closest analogy I can find is the weekly coaches/AP poll in college sports leagues in the US). So maybe in your Galnet postings don't use the term "powerplay" outright but keep the general tone of "weekly ranking results" that you've done so well.
 
Last edited:

Lobstris

Lobstris
Cadoc said:
That's actually a very tricky thing to get a handle on. I write those weekly "A Week in Powerplay" posts, and I'm never quite sure where the line is. Should I be writing about "Powers" and "Powerplay", or are those entirely meta terms? How do you talk IC about events like... Imperials constantly attacking Federation space, where that clearly goes against established game lore? It's hard to reconcile some of this stuff with what we know about the Elite universe, or maybe it's just that I don't really understand how Powerplay slots into it all.
Click to expand...

Cadoc, most of the PowerPlay stuff does add atmosphere. The article I'm specifically referring to goes into the raw numbers, i.e. language like '+456cc for a projected total of 897cc by the end of the period' etc. - that strikes me as inappropriate for a news item. If there was some way of referring to the PP mechanics more in the abstract, without referring directly to game mechanics that would be an improvement IMHO. Regarding specific use of 'powers' and 'powerplay' in text - yep, I'd avoid that like the plague.
.
As you say, it must be tricky to reconcile something that is so out of the original lore of the game, but I lay the blame there clearly at Frontier's door for making a mess of their own IP in the name of pvp indulgence. :(
 

Renegade Roach

R
Cadoc said:
That's actually a very tricky thing to get a handle on. I write those weekly "A Week in Powerplay" posts, and I'm never quite sure where the line is. Should I be writing about "Powers" and "Powerplay", or are those entirely meta terms? How do you talk IC about events like... Imperials constantly attacking Federation space, where that clearly goes against established game lore? It's hard to reconcile some of this stuff with what we know about the Elite universe, or maybe it's just that I don't really understand how Powerplay slots into it all.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced FD know how PP slots into the lore, quite honestly. For me the whole thing jars with the Elite universe, too many aspects which make me think 'Huh, how does that make sense?'

And fair point about Torval and EIC.
 

Lobstris

Lobstris
In terms of things like the Federation attacking Imperial space, and vice versa, I suppose the whole thing should be couched in terms of being a proxy conflict, waged by mercenaries acting for factions, rather than an actual 'hot war' that would be too costly for both sides. Still doesn't make much sense though, unless you view the 'superpowers' as paper tigers, and human space collapsing into anarchy.
 

Sealurk

Sealurk
Lobstris said:
To be fair, at least the Code article was terrible, but readable and mildly amusing. Far more immersion killing is the PowerPlay update article talking about projected 'CC' for each faction. I mean, what the hell is 'CC'? It's an abstract metagame concept that really has no place in a news article. Couldn't that kind of thing be shoved under a PowerPlay tab somewhere to be ignored?
Click to expand...

Cadoc said:
That's actually a very tricky thing to get a handle on. I write those weekly "A Week in Powerplay" posts, and I'm never quite sure where the line is. Should I be writing about "Powers" and "Powerplay", or are those entirely meta terms? How do you talk IC about events like... Imperials constantly attacking Federation space, where that clearly goes against established game lore? It's hard to reconcile some of this stuff with what we know about the Elite universe, or maybe it's just that I don't really understand how Powerplay slots into it all.
Click to expand...

The best solution is to explain that CC is an in-universe term... same with pledging, fortification, undermining and even Powerplay, perhaps. Establish them as actual terms used within the game world and they can be used with impunity. Throw in a bit of fluff to explain how they came into being and Robert's your mother's brother. For example, you could have a Galnet article covering the history of the terminology:


"A number of institutions have recently reported a surge of interest in political science and a better understanding of the galaxy's political landscape. As a result the average citizen is being repeatedly exposed to terminology that, until recently, was regarded as the province of bureaucrats, politicians and research institutes, not least in Galnet's own Powerplay Updates.

Few people are aware that much of our current political terminology is the result of one woman, Professor K.F. Alwin, who almost singlehandedly revolutionised the field of political science during the 3280s with the aim of making the vast, complicated and frequently confusing subject much more accessible to the general public.

Among the most commonly used terms in Alwin's Lexicon of Political Science (commonly termed ALPS) is 'Command Capital', more frequently abbreviated to CC. The term was actually first coined by Alwin in 3287 but didn't come into common usage until very recently. Originally called Amalgamated Political and Economic Variables Index, the concept of Command Capital was to make politics more transparent and accessible by reducing a government's power to a simple numeric value through the use of a complicated formula that Alwin herself spent years finetuning."
 
Last edited:

edgar

edgar
Sealurk said:
"A number of institutions have recently reported a surge of interest in political science and a better understanding of the galaxy's political landscape. As a result the average citizen is being repeatedly exposed to terminology that, until recently, was regarded as the province of bureaucrats, politicians and research institutes, not least in Galnet's own Powerplay Updates.

Few people are aware that much of our current political terminology is the result of one woman, Professor K.F. Alwin, who almost singlehandedly revolutionised the field of political science during the 3280s with the aim of making the vast, complicated and frequently confusing subject much more accessible to the general public.

Among the most commonly used terms in Alwin's Lexicon of Political Science (commonly termed ALPS) is 'Command Capital', more frequently abbreviated to CC. The term was actually first coined by Alwin in 3287 but didn't come into common usage until very recently. Originally called Amalgamated Political and Economic Variables Index, the concept of Command Capital was to make politics more transparent and accessible by reducing a government's power to a simple numeric value through the use of a complicated formula that Alwin herself spent years finetuning."
Click to expand...

That's really good. Submit an article to Galnet and get this incorporated into canon!
 

Ralph Vargr

Ralph Vargr
Last edited:

deMangler

deMangler
Canoe said:
The inability for both FD and non-FD staff to either spell or proof-read has been a long-standing issue. Coupled with poor-quality material, it completely kills immersion.
Click to expand...
Early on I submitted a ticket drawing attention to some mission text where instead of having the word "foment" they had "ferment". I got a response that it was not an error. I have not bothered submitting a ticket since.
 
Last edited:

DNYI

DNYI
I second (or however many responses in favor of your request plus one) your request to have galnet articles submitted to proof reading, editing, spelling, grammar, and consistency checks before being posted in game.
 

Anopheles

Anopheles
Hi!

I submitted the article and I should make some points.

1: I should have taken more care with the original article. I'm actually quite a good writer (with a degree in it, no less), but I was tired and I had to heavily edit the original, much more PP critical post and I have ADD so that eventually (if I can stop myself publishing early) I make things clear. A lot of my posts require me to edit and correct and I should have waited longer before submission. That's on me.

2: Some of the grammar and spelling mistakes appear to have come in transliteration.

3: As for complaining about 'Sweeeet', please remember that this is an indirect quote from someone who is not happy with the speaker. Getting people to dislike Archon was part, (but not all, of course), of the point.

4: Also, please remember 'Register', which is that we use different words depending on our audience (Mother, friends, boss, vicar, etc). I wouldn't expect two Pirate Lords to sound like a management meeting in conversation.

5; I expected a 'bumper' on either end of the article explaining 'That message has been received..." or some such, with a short sentence or two at the end.

6: Apologies if I ruined your game.

7: Kudos to FD for publishing an article so negative against PP. They went up in my book for that.
 
Last edited:

Brimstone

Brimstone
Anopheles said:
Hi!

I submitted the article and I should make some points.

1: I should have taken more care with the original article. I'm actually quite a good writer (with a degree in it, no less), but I was tired and I had to heavily edit the original, much more PP critical post and I have ADD so that eventually (if I can stop myself publishing early) I make things clear. A lot of my posts require me to edit and correct and I should have waited longer before submission. That's on me.

2: Some of the grammar and spelling mistakes appear to have come in transliteration.

3: As for complaining about 'Sweeeet', please remember that this is an indirect quote from someone who is not happy with the speaker. Getting people to dislike Archon was part, (but not all, of course), of the point.

4: Also, please remember 'Register', which is that we use different words depending on our audience (Mother, friends, boss, vicar, etc). I wouldn't expect two Pirate Lords to sound like a management meeting in conversation.

5; I expected a 'bumper' on either end of the article explaining 'That message has been received..." or some such, with a short sentence or two at the end.

6: Apologies if I ruined your game.

7: Kudos to FD for publishing an article so negative against PP. They went up in my book for that.
Click to expand...
sweeeeeeeet galnet article bro. Since you have a degree in writing, I look forward to seeing more refined submissions from you, unless there already are other submissions of yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom