update from sparkleup

writing/post-self/pbta.html

@@ -238,7 +238,13 @@
 <h4 id="player-moves">Player moves</h4>
 <h5 id="forking-and-quitting">Forking and quitting</h5>
 <p>An integral part of life on the System is forking, where individuals may create a copy of themselves, whether for a task or to live out on their own. Optionally, that fork may <em>quit</em> and <em>merge</em> back down, wherein the initial individual (known as the <em>downtree instance</em>) receives all of their memories.</p>
-<p>Given the importance of being able to fork, this can play a large role in gameplay, and some players, depending on their <em>dissolution strategy,</em> may fork quite often. There are three dissolution strategies</p>
+<p>Given the importance of being able to fork, this can play a large role in gameplay, and some players, depending on their <em>dissolution strategy</em>, may fork quite often. This will be governed by the dissolution strategy specified in the character&rsquo;s <em>agendas and principles</em>.</p>
+<p>After the early 2200s, forking on the System is essentially free, incurring only a small <em>reputation</em> cost. However, the dissolution strategy plays a role in one&rsquo;s ability to fork and merge.</p>
+<ul>
+<li><em>Dispersionistas</em> fork and merge easily and frequently. There&rsquo;s no in-game mechanics cost to them forking, as long as the time period in which the game is set is after the early 2200s, meaning that the number of dispersionistas on the System rapidly increased after that date. Their root instance is usually tagged <em>#Root</em>. <em>Not</em> forking often goes against the character&rsquo;s <em>principles,</em> but is occasionally required for the situation at hand. Dispersionistas can wind up quite batty given the incredible build-up of memory that their down-tree instances can wind up with.</li>
+<li><em>Trackers</em> fork to track specific tasks, relationships, or trains of thought. These forks may be long-lived, but they merge down-tree with some frequency so that their down-tree instance (usually the <em>root instance</em>) can keep track of all of the different threads that their tracking. Their root instance is usually tagged <em>#Tracker</em>. Given that the idea of letting a long-lived instance individuate beyond a certain point and lose their shared identity, letting a fork linger too long goes against their <em>principles</em>, as can not forking at all. While this memory does build up within trackers, it plays far less of a role in affecting stability as it does in dispersionistas.</li>
+<li>The most conservative of strategies, <em>taskers</em> fork rarely (if at all), and then usually to accomplish only one or two tasks. Their root instance is usually tagged <em>#Core</em>. Having to fork more often than that is incredibly uncomfortable and would work counter to the character&rsquo;s <em>principles</em>. That said, taskers maintain the strongest sense of self and, with so little divergent memory, remain some of the sanest on the System.</li>
+</ul>
 <h5 id="the-perisystem-architecture">The Perisystem Architecture</h5>
 <h5 id="overflowing-with-memory">Overflowing with memory</h5>
 <h5 id="the-shared-dream">The shared dream</h5>

writing/workshop-packet/essay.html

@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
 <p>The two sessions of the workshop were focused on critical reading and critiquing writing. The video provided in lieu of a first session involved the critiquing of a piece published by an author not in attendance to offer an example of the process of critiquing and workshopping. The Saturday session involved workshopping the pieces used for applying using the standard format of a silent author for the first few minutes, followed by a discussion where they were included.</p>
 <p>The Sunday session involved critiquing a piece of homework. On the first day, authors were given a bit more than a day and a half to write approximately 1,000 words of fiction. On the evening of the second day, these assignments were emailed to each of the authors so that the third day could workshop those pieces, keeping in mind the lessons that they had learned so far. This also provided an opportunity to write a piece with the fact that it would be critiqued in mind.</p>
 <p>The workshop was highly successful, both from my point of view as the facilitator and the point of view of the attendees. Despite some confusions on communication early on &mdash; we had originally planned on three sessions before schedule conflicts got in the way, and initial communications regarding the structure of critique were unclear &mdash; the attendees left the workshop feeling like they had a clear idea of the feedback they received and what directions they could take their submitted works. I left the workshop with a greater understanding of facilitation and how to guide timed discussions.</p>
-<p>The second workshop took place in-person at <a href="https://furcon.org">Further Confusion</a>, a mid-sized convention (for furry, at approximately 4,500 attendees).</p>
+<p>The <a href="second.html">second</a> workshop took place in-person at <a href="https://furcon.org">Further Confusion</a>, a mid-sized convention (for furry, at approximately 4,500 attendees).</p>
 <p>((About FC))
 ((Structure of the workshop))
 ((Outcome))</p>