[@Lalliman]
So long as no illusion is created that somehow using stats would make this less competition-orientated than if it was free-form (it wouldn't; stats endorse competition over depth and complexity of [i]good[/i] writing, not the opposite), I have no other comments on the matter (just woke up, stuff to do); I've pretty much said all I need to say and I think you've all got this in hand given that unlike me you actually use/care about/whatever this sort of system.

[@ELGainsborough] asked for my input so I gave it. The only concerns I had to discuss were buried in that last post, such as how the "better" writer would be determined without it becoming a [i]bigger[/i] flame war than simply debating over accuracy/evasions/etc like a couple of adults. The latter of those things can be dealt with through mature collaboration and good groundwork; the former is just elitism and cockfighting between writers (and that's fucking short-sighted given that writing is a very subjective form of art in nature). I've been on (and run) advanced role-playing forums where posts get graded (always being one of the highest level writers on the forums I was part of, frequently having the character sheets that were considered the best quality as well); I know what I'm talking about. This sort of practice leads to elitism and elitism does [i]not[/i] create a good role-player because (unlike writing) role-playing is facilitated by teamwork and community.

Beyond that, my only statements revolve around the detail that most people whose role-playing experience comes from D&D or other Tabletops need to understand that from a narrative perspective these mechanics do not work when actually creating compelling and realistic writing. Once you introduce text to a role-play, the rules of writing become as important as the rules of role-playing; [i]many[/i] people miss this fact.