This might sound kind of rude to some people, but I'm wondering about something. How does a player get to 3@10? The reason I am asking is that a lot of the people at this forum would probably have 3@10 typing ability. MJ almost certainly would have 3@10 typing. However, all of us, including MJ make typos, misspell words, etc. Also, I know that I could type faster than I do. My mom can type over 100 words a minute. I average probably 30-40. Why aren't we all typing impossibly fast, and with no typos?
3@10
(16 posts) (8 voices)-
Blue Canary
MemberIf someone had 3@10 Typing, a 2@3 relevant attribute and the world bias level was 14@, you would still only have a 91% chance of success. That is why there are typos.
I think you are wrong that most people on this forum have 3@10 typing skill. Only those who type professionally (transcriptionists, programmers, writers, secretaries) would have 2@ skills and only the very best would have 3@ skills.
To move from 1@ to 2@ skills you have to double the difficulty of the training. For example, attempting to double your typing speed while being dictated to, or typing in a foreign language (like L33T). Most people get to a comfortable skill level (say 1@9) and stay there.
Thu Oct 4 2007 3:34 pm # -
Wolf Lord
MemberHeck yes,
I'm lucky to have a 1@5 Typing. That might well be stretching it a bit. I've met very few who have professional level typing - keeping in mind that 'words per minute speed' is usually measured in words typed without error.
Graeme already explained the difficulties in going from a 1@ to a 2@, so I won't repeat him here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be offended by your question.
Thu Oct 4 2007 5:10 pm # -
Just to expand a little on Graeme's point (because I think it's important): while the training required to move from level 1 to level 2 has to be doubled twice, the training to then go from level 2 to level 3 needs to be tripled three times. While plenty of people put in the time and effort to get to professional level at typing, very few (if any) subject themselves to the kind of training program that would be required to become truly expert.
If someone had 3@10 Typing, a 2@3 relevant attribute and the world bias level was 14@, you would still only have a 91% chance of success. That is why there are typos.
Well, if the typist knew his way around a teleporter or a hyperspace drive, yes; if all he knew were computers, it'd be more like 85%. But the reason we have typos on the board is simpler than that. Typists here are all level one or two, and I imagine most of the errors come from the level one typists.* I would expect that a 3@10 typist posting here would never make a mistake, despite his 15% chance of failing his typing checks. Why? Because as referee, I never even ask him to make a check unless
a) the keys are unlabeled and have been re-arranged into a configuration he has never seen or heard of
b) he's typing on a laptop, in a rowboat, on the open seas, during a storm
c) his blood-alcohol content is greater than or equal to 0.14%
d) his hands have been injured - both of them, badly
e) he is typing while defending himself in combatFurther, I would not penalize any of those checks for adverse conditions. For the 3@10 character, the penalty is having to roll at all. Note also that this guy can compose a 200-word email to his grandmother in a minute and six seconds while buffeted by 40mph winds in a rowboat on the Atlantic and not use the backspace key once.
___
*(The ability to edit the errors and/or use the backspace means we can't assess typing skill by examining people's posts, but that's neither here nor there.)Thu Oct 4 2007 5:37 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberI certainly don't have 3@10. Most of the time I can type faster than I can talk or hand write, and I don't make too many errors although 'teh' gets me a lot.
My writing errors tend to be more at the grammatical level with run-on sentences and the like.
It took me about a 120 hrs. of head slamming into the wall full-bore WORK to learn to type. After I learned, I wondered why I hadn't done it years ago. But I'm fairly certain that if I went by a secretary office with a pool of say four secretaries, and we all had a contest, I'd rank dead last.
I'd put myself at 1@8, I'd guess which is good enough since I have to think of the words also, and there is a certain speed limit there as well. I wouldn't mind being a little faster so I had a consistent smooth speed like 2@1. I'm not sure being hugely faster would be much of a benefit except for transcribing old stories, but then I could probably find a use for it.
Eric
Thu Oct 4 2007 5:43 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberS_M_Kelley wrote: Graeme already explained the difficulties in going from a 1@ to a 2@, so I won't repeat him here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be offended by your question.
Well, I was pointing out that we all make typing errors. That just seemed like something that might offend someone.
And what I meant by "We all have 3@10 typing" is that we probably put in the required time to get to 3@10. MJ certainly has. I forgot that it wasn't just time practicing, it was also time working on improving, which I have not tried to do since high school.
So what you all seem to be saying is that even MJ, who has the most typing practice of us all, would be a 1@ typist, because he never worked on improving, despite his many thousands of hours at practice. That makes sense. So how does one get to 3@10?
Thu Oct 4 2007 8:47 pm # -
I'm not sure what typing skill I'd give for myself. I actually have been paid to type, and I'm better now than I was then, but I'd still not put myself at 2@5. Also, I think I would say that I have that SAL at keyboarding, specifically. I learned on a manual typewriter, advanced to an electric and then the IBM Selectret and equivalent systems (type balls and daisywheels, they're a bit different for the standard typist because you don't alway hear the click the instant you hit the key, and if you're fast enough the system has to catch up with you--as compared with a standard typewriter, which if you're fast enough you'll jam the keys).
I joke that when I worked as a typist I could type thirty-five mistakes per minute, but now I'm up to seventy-five. However, I think there are a couple of things that make me a professional typist.
- I don't have to look at the screen. One thing that they teach you in typing class (which I took in high school, although when I finished I could only to twelve mistakes per minute) is to keep your eye on the text you are typing, not on the text you are typing--that is, you are reading something and should never look away from it, and you should not have to do so. I don't have to see the screen to know what I'm typing.
- Most of the letters/numbers are worn off my keyboard, but that's not necessary for me. It drives my wife crazy, and she cannot use my computer because of it, but I don't have to look at the keyboard to the point that I do not know which symbols are still legible and which are not. If you ask me where I key is, I can find it in my head and tell you how to count to reach it; I can probably recite the QWERTY keyboard, if I try. (Of course, I can also sing the alphabet backwards--I'm weird that way.) I never look at the keyboard, even to position my hands; they go where they go.
- That part about not having to see the screen means something else: I do not have to see the screen to know I've typed a mistake, and I don't always have to look to fix it. I know when my fingers have hit a wrong key, inserted an incorrect letter, missed a stroke, whatever the mistake might be, and before I have even seen the mistake on the screen I've started back-keying to correct it. (If I were better I would more frequently move the cursor to the mistake and correct it that way; usually I back-space delete to the point of the mistake and resume from there. Since my reaction time to my own mistakes is slower than my typing, I sometimes wind up deleting several words to get back to the point at which the mistake was made, although usually it's just a few letters.)
If I wanted a 3@ typing skill, I would start by acquiring the old typewriters. Then I would pick up some modern keyboards that are different in various ways. Four come to mind.
- The QWERTY keyboard was designed by the original inventor of the typewriter specifically to slow down typing; it requires the greatest number of awkward finger movements possible to type in the English language. He did this because he recognized that a skilled user could type faster than his machine could respond, so he made it as difficult as possible to do so. It was some years later that someone else created a keyboard (starts with D, but I can't remember the sequence) that was designed to facilitate the maximum number of common English letter combinations. I would have to get one of those, and learn to type on it. That would be a challenge--but I could do it, I'm sure. I've noticed that I can "touch-type" on both a phone dial and an adding machine, and if you'll notice they're inverted relative to each other. I just have to get in my head which I'm using. The same could be done with an alternate character arrangement.
- I would need to get a Koine Greek Language keyboard. It makes sense to get a Cyrillic keyboard, but I don't speak any languages that use that alphabet. (I might have to learn a few eventually if I want to reach 3@10 on this.) I do read and write Koine, and I should learn to type it; but even were I to switch to the Greek font on the current keyboard, it does not do the accents and breathers and such, so I couldn't actually type Greek on it, and there would be little call to use it. A Greek keyboard would make a difference.
- I find I cannot type effectively on my wife's laptop, and I know the reason: the keyboard is smaller. I would get a laptop, maybe keyboards of several sizes. I don't think that one of those stylus-typing keyboards would matter, because at that point you're not typing in the same sense; if it's too small for my fingers, I can't do it (although my familiarity with the board would suggest that I could stylus type faster than some, but I know people who are lightning fast on their text messaging, and I don't text message).
- I tried one of those "ergonomic" keyboards once, the sort that are split and bent so that your hands come in at angles. I can see that being easier on the wrists. However, it drove me crazy: the 6/^ key is on the left side of the keyboard, but touch typing instruction teaches you to hit that with the index finger of your right hand. I remember being derailed every time I had to hit the 6. I also remember it being very uncomfortable. Touch typing is a bod skill, really--your fingers know where to go, and it's based very much on your kinesthetic ability to know where your hands are relative to each other. Moving them apart requires relearning what you are doing.
Hope that helps.
--M. J. Young
Thu Oct 4 2007 9:29 pm # -
Graham
MemberI've actually typed massive sections of my papers with my head on my hands or on my desk, and rarely do I have to look up to correct a mistake. However, I would still never try to assume a 3@_ skill in writing or 2@_ for that matter. I mean, my generation grew up with keyboards, so I definitely know my way around them. I've played with blank keyboards, that is keyboards with no text on them (they still had the raised plastic pieces on the f and j keys though, so it wasn't too bad.)
I believe the key set MJ is referring to is Dvorak.
Thu Oct 4 2007 10:14 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberDvorshak, I think is the 'D'.
Interesting description of a high level typist. This may, no it does, sound silly, but something like that might be of use in a Gamemaster's Guide to the Multiverse. Make an article describing "How to become a 3@ Expert in a Skill."
Eric
Thu Oct 4 2007 10:18 pm # -
Graham - the fact that your generation grew up with keyboards doesn't mean you are less skilled with them; the SALs are relative to the entire population of the multiverse, not to your peer group. If MJ is a 2@ typist, and if you can perform the same feats as he, you are probably also a 2@ typist. Those are two very important "if"s, but you see my point.
If it became important, I'd peg you as either 1@10 (based on your testimony) or low level 2 - just because you never have been paid to type doesn't mean you couldn't be. If I believed that you could interview for a job in data entry, get hired, and start tomorrow, any call lower than 2@1 is a mistake.
And Eric's right. Elaboration on these sorts of guidelines is exactly the sort of thing new referees need, and I'd love to see it added in to a future edition of the Rules.
Thu Oct 4 2007 11:31 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberI have a theory.
In world design, you obviously have to hit the basics, but...sometimes you might get to something that is not a basic, but has a sheer brilliance to it.
I remember one time Graeme was very impressed when everyone discussed the rules for anarch worlds, and the learning of magic, and how some Anarch deities powerblock the lower levels. With the end result being that you'd have anarch humans studying ancient texts for twenty years to start to do magic...which perfectly fit the stories.
This illustration of the effect of the rules of world creation, or this illustration of how to become a 3@ typist are moments of special brilliance...jewels as it were.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice your jewels because they are out of the ballpark, too far from the basic you MUST cover, but keep as many as you can.
And thanks, Wodium, I wasn't totally sure I was right, but with you agreeing with me, I find more confidence.
Eric
Fri Oct 5 2007 1:42 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberEric, I'm not certain I understood what you just said, but I do have something. Of course you need the basics to do something. Did you ever see "The Next Karate Kid"? Hilary Swank was awarded a Pink belt in Karate for that movie. She learned mastery of the more flashy techniques, without learning the basics of Karate. If you were to fight her, she could throw a double axle flying back kick with no problem, but probably couldn't block a haymaker punch that even I could block. See what I mean about learning the basics?
Fri Oct 5 2007 1:51 am # -
Sure, John - but every now and then a movie needs a Double-Axle Flying Back Kick with Chocolate Sprinkles. I'm pretty sure that's essentially what Eric was saying: that sometimes we get so caught up in the basics (like when we're trying as hard as we can to publish the next world book, maybe) that we forget how cool the shiny jewels can be.
Eric - I'm glad you're reassured. I'm judging based on my own needs and on the sorts of questions I see bandied about on these forums. Granted, there's some slight overlap there.
Actually, maybe there's an idea in that. Troll the forum archives for interesting discussions, re-write them in explanation form, publish as Examples and Elaborations (A Referee's Guide to Representative Case Studies and Interesting Complexities)?
Fri Oct 5 2007 6:05 am #
Reply
You must log in to post.