11:00 a.m., Sydney, Crown Center, Press Conference
With an air of self-assurance, Dr. James Wooden strode in, smiled and seated himself. In a charcoal black suit, Dr. Wooden conveys the image of a true gentleman.
“Welcome to the Press Conference on Project Chimera. As everyone here is well aware, now farming has to be done predominately either with animal or human labour. Also, the radical movement is gaining momentum and causing major disruptions to our lives. Now, I ask all of you, what do we do about them? Well, my answer is that we create something that will simultaneously address these two problems… Now, is there any questions?”
Go to Comment
Finally, those walking monies have given me the funding for my Project Chimera! Imagine the fame I will get when I create the perfect animal that will solve the two most pressing problems of humanity at the moment.
What specimens of DNA should I use to create my Chimera? Let me see, grizzly bear for its strength and ability to sustain mob attacks, the Tasmanian devil so that it will have a rapid reproductive cycle, snakes so that it would have a means to quickly immobilise those pesky radicals and yes, the giant squid from Japan that has that delicious gene with the propensity to mutate, why then my Chimera can continuously breed with other species, creating unique offsprings. Who knows that those walking monies won’t take the fancy to getting their special pet Chimera and give me follow-up funding on project extensions?
Curse those radicals, here I thought this ghost town of Alice Springs would be the perfect place to set up my research compound and all my Aboriginal ‘assistants’ have escaped in the confusion as well. I know, I will move to Bourke in New South Wales, surely there the opportunities to ‘recruit’ more Aboriginal ‘assistants’ are plenty as well.
Those ethnical guidelines that scientists are supposed to uphold are damn nuisances. What’s the difference between a non-lethal venom that will paralyse someone so that they can be killed and a lethal one that directly kills? Damn hypocrites
~ excerpts from a partially recovered personal diary of Dr. James Wooden found at the site of the destroyed research compound at Bourke, NSW
Given the evolution at the Citadel, my voting practice has changed a little as well so I'm updating this but nothing major has changed from when I just wrote this.
I am not really that active a voter really but I am quite interested in how different people vote so I thought I will share my own system of voting here for those who felt this topic is interesting. Actually, in essence, my voting system is really quite similar to that of Forganthus. The differences are:
1. The score of 3 is my benchmark score for submissions that do not have obvious problems with respect to spelling and grammar, content and logic (but in reality, I’ve hardly ever given a submission just a 3, I somehow always managed to find something that I like enough about the sub to rise it up to 3.5)
2. I mainly judge a sub by two parts: content and write-up. (I am not a gamer, I just visit this site as someone whose hobby is writing fantasy related things) Regarding content, I only grade its originality and underlying logic, with more weights given to logic (after all, I think there’s really nothing new under the sun, a lot of original ideas are just new spins on existing ideas). And write-up obviously includes anything basic and objective from spelling and grammar to more complex and subjective domains such as expression, tone and atmosphere etc.
3.(NEW!) With new developments at the Citadel such as the Oekaki Challenge and the Weaver Guild Quests etc. that are various forms of Writing Challenges, my votes now adjust for the inherent difficulty of these writing challenges. So a sub that's normally just plain 3 for me is now 3.5 if it falls under one of these challenge categories. I will explicitly mention such deviation from my normal grading scheme in my comment as well.
4. My 5’s are what I think perfect. Of course, that doesn’t mean the submission has to be perfect with respect to both content and write-up. I think a submission that scores 4-4.5 on one aspect and 5 on the other aspect will already get a 5 from me.
5. I also have a habit of abstaining from voting on particular submissions. These are either: 1) those that I don’t have anything to say about it for whatever reasons, mainly subs that are not really my type- I'm an avid fan of fantasy whereas sci-fi is really not my thing; 2) those below my benchmark score for which I usually leave a comment on suggestions on areas to improve and might revisit if revised; 3) those that I read and found I didn’t agree with the existing score but didn’t want to downvote without providing some constructive feedback on how it could be improved (and usually for these I couldn’t).
6. My Hall of Honour isn’t really reserved for submissions with high scores. It could be something voted low for the write-up but has an underlying idea that’s quite interesting. But of course, it could also well be an old but quality submission that has already been acknowledged by existing votes but maybe hasn’t received enough votes from my point of view or I felt was inspirational and deserved to be looked at again.Go to Comment