Mind Control

The Codex of Modern Mind Control

A Lexicon Game

This game began on the Erotic Mind Control Stories forum, in a thread found here. To start playing, please introduce yourself in that thread.

Participating scholars include:

A list of entries can be found here:

A working timeline of the world can be found here:


  • We are using all the rules established on the Home Page, along with the variants Follow the Phantoms and Codependence. The rules, as adjusted by the variants, are below.
  1. Turns are every Sunday and last for a week. Players write no more than one entry a turn. All entries should be added to the MC Entries category. (Following the MC Entry Format ensures this.)

    Turns made on Sundays can be considered a part of the prior turn, or the current turn, at the author's discretion.
  2. On a player's first turn, you write your first entry. You come up with the name of the entry, and you write 100-200 words or so on the subject. At the end of the article, you sign the name of the scholar you're working on, and make two citations to other, new entries in the encyclopaedia.

    These entries will be considered phantoms - their names exist, but their content will get filled in only on the appropriate turn. Players starting after the first turn may cite already-existing phantoms without having them counted against their two. Pages for the phantom entries should be created following the standardized format to allow them to appear on the MC Entries page.
  3. Also on the first turn you should create a scholar page (using the Scholar Format) and provide some information about the persona you've adopted for this game, along with a link to your first entry. A scholar belongs to a player for the duration of the game. Players may not switch between authors - there are numerous other techniques to vary writing style and presentation without sacrificing character continuity.

    As new players arrive, scholar pages may be added to throughout the game as long as no information in existing entries is contradicted.
  4. On your the second and subsequent turns, you must choose an existing phantom entry, one from the prior turn if possible; if all entries are effectively barred through citation and dibs, you may choose an entry from the current turn, or if those are also barred, you may create a new entry. Once an article is written, add a link to the article to your Scholar page.

    After the first turn, all entries must have 3 citations - one must be a reference to an already-written entry, and two more must be to unwritten entries (one must be a new phantom, one must be an existing phantom). Only two phantom citations are allowed, but additional backwards citations can always be added.

    Citations to existing phantom articles cannot be made if the writer is the only one able to write in that article.

    Being a collaborative tool for writers, we encourage our participants to write stories based in this universe. For each story written (and posted to the EMCSA, with a link/reference to the Lexicon), the author is granted the freedom to create a brand new article. The one stipulation is that the article must somehow relate to an element or revelation in the story they've written. Of course, articles must still include two phantom citations - their story counts as its backwards citation.

    This game is meant to be perpetual, but if an end is ever called, during the sunset period, additional phantom entries must be filled, but no new phantom entries can be created. Instead, you must make citations to already-existing entries.
  5. Players wanting to plan ahead may call dibs on any eligible phantom entry, but may not hold more than one dibbed article at a time.

    To call dibs on a phantom, add your scholar name as the author and remove the phantom link from the bottom of the page, and add the article to the dibs category by replacing the article text with the following:

    -Author {as WikiWord link} 
  1. It is an academic sin to cite yourself, so your scholar may never cite another entry he has written, and may never write a phantom entry he has cited. Scholars are also encouraged to refrain from citing phantoms they have previously cited, but this is not a strict rule.

    Despite the fact that your peers are self-important, narrow-minded dunderheads, they are honest scholars. No matter how strained their interpretations are, their FACTS are as accurate as historical research can make them. So if you cite an entry, you have to treat its factual content as true! (Although you can argue against the interpretation and may introduce new facts to shade the interpretation).