[@Terminal] I'm in.  I have one win, so two lives, though I'll gladly accept donations.



ANYHOW~!  I actually have...a rather interesting idea.  First off, everyone that has won labors but doesn't want to participate should choose /someone/ participating to give their lives to.  Perhaps multiple people, so as to avoid the penalty for transferring multiple lives.  Then they should enter the first iteration with the specific goal of dying, so the rest of the lives belong to their recipients.  <3

The next part of this is that, perhaps, we who wish to play should team up.  I see nothing in the rules that disallows working together to overcome this challenge.  If people team up and write one character together, theoretically that would allow more lives (from all players on the team!)  It'd also mean that there's more minds working together.  To further that idea, I believe we should make characters who will assist each other, or at least end up doing so if not starting that way initially.  While perhaps meeting the posting deadline with multiple writers is difficult, teams could nominate one "writer" and the rest as contributors/brainpower.  <3  I encourage people to work together.  It's us against Mr. Termite the DM, it seems.  <3  Should be fun~

However, it seems more participants is better in terms of health of the thread, so it's a balance, I guess.  I highly encourage people to have their posts proofread by others -- and perhaps we could set up a gdoc for this purpose -- so as to avoid silly mistakes.

I also wish to ask if there are considerations made for those of us who are typing on something where proofing and editing are more difficult, and where autocorrect is a serious issue.  I know that for me personally, my Kindle makes an accurate, neat, and grammatical post a nigh-unreachable dream, and that while I can make a reasonable effort to be comprehensible, thorough editing is pretty much impossible.  Accurate typing is difficult, and the time required to fix the errors generated by use of an onscreen keyboard makes writing nightmarish.  Also my Kindle seems to have issues and can think it has received input when in fact it has not.  Indeed, sometimes it enjoys closing tabs all on its own.  *sigh*

You mention that minor errors might be useful to adjust your manner of writing.  I find this interesting.  I also wonder if consideration will be given for narrative style and the voice of the character whose perspective is being used.  I do hope it will.  Additionally, I wonder how strict you are going to be in terms of what constitutes an error.  For example: there are stylistic rules that different people handle with varying degrees of attentiveness, like placement of certain commas (the most obvious example, of course, is the Oxford comma, but there are other instances where one might or might not use a comma and it's a matter of how one wishes the sentence to flow), the use of a conjunction to start a sentence or a preposition to end it, and how one deals with pronouns for a single entity of indeterminate gender.  If there are to be consequences that pertain to what in the end is a personal choice even if perhaps not technically correct (and there are debates over what are claimed to be the "official" rules for these and other issues), I would like to know.  More serious transgressions, such as the egregiously erroneous use of "like" in places where it might be put conversationally but not in formal writing, or deliberate technical violations done for effect, are also a concern.

And...what the heck, Term.  You know, I'm sure, that you've got *counts* ten nested posts there, right?  And that all of them are not the same, though I only noticed the difference between the first and the rest.

[hider=shy plays the grammar game]
On a related note:
>arbadacarba (**abracadabra)
>opportunities...will avail themselves to you (One avails oneself of something.  So one might avail oneself of an opportunity, but the opportunity is revealed, not availed.  Perhaps it is available?  There's a few ways to correct this.)
WTF Terminal, we've not even started yet; there's been no errors for you to respond to.  =P[/hider]

All in all this looks very interesting.  I'm debating who I wanna use.  Someone clever, and probably brave...but not very powerful.  But in the end, a character being broken is determined entirely by how they are played.  So a literal god might not be broken if played well, and an ordinary Walmart cashier might be broken if played poorly.  Is this judged by abilities or by how the character is played and the intent of the writer?  I'm hoping the latter.  ^.^

Think I covered everything.  For now, at least.  WOO!