Retry
05/16/14 12:16 AM
76.7.236.208
|
I'm not sure how you can interprete that as a "bait tactic" in any form but whatever.
I will repeat, a new mod or two would not be a bad idea, but not because our current one is biased or exceptionally flawed.
ATM, the best potential new mods I can think of would be Kamikaze Johnson or His-most-royal-highass-donkey. Of course, considering the active Sarna user pool is probably under double-didgets, and my own pool of people to choose from this site is like 4 or 5 people anyways.
EDIT:Looks like the moderators have already been appointed too. That was quick.
Edited by Retry (05/16/14 12:19 AM)
|
ghostrider
05/16/14 05:33 AM
66.74.185.193
|
I did get a partial warning about megamek and information that may or may not be correct on it. So Karagin isn't the only one that was asked to drop it. Mine was nicer since it was a request. Sorry if this will count against reviving the topic in another thread.
Karagin is not the only person who has questioned it in the forums. Now combined with spamming a few times along with another person may have helped issues along. On this line, he was not the only one that was guilty of spam badgering.
As for combining rules, as much as they cover the same ground, they do cover other areas as well, that the others don't.
In the end, there can be only one rule... don't post. 
|
Karagin
05/16/14 01:25 PM
70.118.139.48
|
As a way to avoid issues, I purpose we have a rule that requires full posting of all stats and critical information about a design be it a vehicle or mech etc. That way we would not have folks getting into arguments over this.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/17/14 02:32 AM
66.74.185.193
|
Hate to say it, but that one would be very difficult to set up.
It sounds stupid, but that would be an infringement of civil rights, being forced to avoid use of a particular program.
I was going to help threadjack this one but realized before I hit enter what I was doing.
I would like to see who they have lined up for being a mod.
|
Cray
05/17/14 09:24 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I would like to see who they have lined up for being a mod.
Nic already said that in this thread. 
Quote:
Nic Jansma writes:
Thanks Frabby. You and BobTheZombie have been wonderful help on the wiki, and I would appreciate your help being additional moderators here as the need arises.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Frabby
05/17/14 10:07 AM
87.164.128.36
|
...which isn't clearly spelled out. So, to confirm, BobtheZombie and myself have been made admins on this forum by Nic.
|
Karagin
05/17/14 11:04 AM
70.118.139.48
|
No Ghostrider it would not be an infringement on anything. This a private site, NOT a public one. It has rules, and since the rules pretty much tell us we can't say what we want how we want then there would be no issue with a rule stating that all the stats and information pertaining to what makes up a unit be posted. It would be a simple rule. All posting will include the full stats for a vehicle or mech etc...wording can be worked out. No program would be excluded unless it doesn't give you full stats.
Example would be weights for the engine, gyro, controls heat sinks, special equipment etc...all that makes up the information of a mech or vehicle. Not seeing how hard this is to understand since the same information is found in every TRO for the game and pretty much every design program shows and allows for export to a text file, all but Mega Mek and it's flawed system.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (05/17/14 02:32 PM)
|
BobTheZombie
05/17/14 11:44 AM
198.45.174.125
|
Quote:
Frabby writes:
...which isn't clearly spelled out. So, to confirm, BobtheZombie and myself have been made admins on this forum by Nic.
Actually, I think we're just Moderators; I'm pretty sure Nic is the only true "Admin" here (hence the A by his name and M's by our names).
|
Frabby
05/17/14 02:03 PM
87.164.128.36
|
Um, yeah. What Bob said. That's what I get for posting on the fly while doing other things.
I think I mistook it for Admin level on the Wiki (where NicJ also has a higher rank, called bureaucrat in the Wiki's case.)
|
Cray
05/18/14 12:47 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
No Ghostrider it would not be an infringement on anything. This a private site, NOT a public one. It has rules, and since the rules pretty much tell us we can't say what we want how we want then there would be no issue with a rule stating that all the stats and information pertaining to what makes up a unit be posted. It would be a simple rule. All posting will include the full stats for a vehicle or mech etc...wording can be worked out. No program would be excluded unless it doesn't give you full stats.
Example would be weights for the engine, gyro, controls heat sinks, special equipment etc...all that makes up the information of a mech or vehicle. Not seeing how hard this is to understand since the same information is found in every TRO for the game and pretty much every design program shows and allows for export to a text file, all but Mega Mek and it's flawed system.
I understand the information content you're requesting for new, user-posted designs. But are you asking that this be made a forum posting rule enforced with warnings and bans in the same fashion as the other posting rules?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
05/18/14 05:48 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Yes. Given how quick bans can be made for pointing out issues, then all of the normal rules would apply as well. Seems fair to me.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (05/18/14 08:53 PM)
|
Karagin
05/21/14 11:06 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Oh and for the record, I am not suggesting limiting it to one program time, which, again since Cray likes to point out things related to CBT for his examples how the rules etc..., I will point out that Rick bans any programs other then the Heavy Metal Pro ones, which makes sense there, here, though no, a design program works IF it shows all the needed information in the same or a similar format that the TROs show, which. I do not believe this is asking too much or censoring anyone, it's more of keeping things on the same level as what is considered standard by and how TPTB present mechs, vehicles and other units in the game to us the players.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
05/22/14 06:31 PM
198.45.174.125
|
To clarify, if someone used a program that leaves out some info but they manually put it at the bottom of the post, would they be breaking the rule?
|
Karagin
05/22/14 07:02 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I would say no, since they would be providing the info, but if they leave out the tonnage of things or where it goes then yes it would be.
Example listing 600 points of fuel for an aircraft/fighter. Where is the tonnage for this?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/23/14 02:59 AM
24.30.133.143
|
I agree that anything uploaded as a design should have all the stats listed, even if it means going in and manually inputting the information for it.
But that is left for nic to decide. If he if fine with the way things are, then there is nothing short of making your own board that can be done about it.
And this is for you nic, please make some sort of official statement on this.
I am sure alot of people are tired of seeing questions asked about things that should be in the stats and aren't. Yes, that is a loaded statement.
And cray, if the stats uploaded had all the information in there, then people could see at a glance if something fishy is going on. A bad code in a matrix is hard to catch if you don't look for them. Programmers make mistakes. Even the official coders make them. Windows is a good example. More then a few times they needed a update right after a release because they missed something.
|
Cray
05/23/14 12:03 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And cray, if the stats uploaded had all the information in there, then people could see at a glance if something fishy is going on. A bad code in a matrix is hard to catch if you don't look for them. Programmers make mistakes. Even the official coders make them. Windows is a good example. More then a few times they needed a update right after a release because they missed something.
I understand that having poorly-detailed designs posted here is annoying, and something might be wrong in the design.
However, posts here are an optional, free luxury item that you choose to sample. They're not program code in the autopilot of an airliner you're stuck in. You are able to walk away from designs that have errors and ignore users you know won't be delivering a post that you're interested in. Therefore, detecting errors in the designs isn't vital.
The current forum rules are based on the premise of "you have the right to swing your fist until you hit someone's nose." You can post all manner of thoughts and free-wheeling ideas unless:
1, 10) You make it personal, or take it below the belt
3, 4, 8 ) You take it really-off topic or get into flamebait topics.
5, 6) You pick fights or don't let old fights go.
9) You steal other people's ideas
Within that framework, you get to discuss everything from critiques of current BT storylines (and express dislike of them), post alternate histories, share custom weapons, and much more. You can even be incorrect in your statements. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with being wrong, so long as you stay civil and mature about it.
Since you can easily ignore a civil post and are under no mandate to read it, a rule to force standard details into design posts does not seem appropriate. Instead of lobbying for "Retry's Rule," try exercising a key skill of civil discourse: turn the other cheek.
But if Sarna's owner feels otherwise, then I'll enforce a rule that insists on standard data for fan-made designs to the letter.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (05/23/14 12:09 PM)
|
Karagin
05/23/14 12:38 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I call BS on that Cray, plenty of posting here of folks pointing out issue with the WoB and Jihad storyline and if you are telling me they allowed to express their ideas etc without being attacked, then I think you may want to read the older posts again.
I am sorry but we need something that has the formating of designs done so in a manner to allow for easy of reading and also allows for an easy of understanding the direction the poster is going. Following your logic then the TROs shouldn't have a format listing things in nice tables and giving us the details to show the mechs or any unit in a manner that appeals to the players to use them in a game. They should just list pages of simple stats and no detail and be done with things.
Also why are you against this?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 01:07 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Folks post their ideas and such here, either to share or to get input on them to improve them or generate a discussion about things. Yes Cray you are right we can post just about anything related to BT, and most of us do. Problem is 99.9% of the folks post things in a format others can read with ease, and when folks have not in the past and it has been suggested to them to follow the other examples there has never been as much as hostility as we have seen recently over it.
I do find it odd that you are against this and have even taken the step to label it and thus in a way made it a possible flame bait topic kind of thing. And yet you say this with immunity of being a moderator, which I feel goes against the ideas of having rules if the moderators are above them then what good are these rules?
Asking for a rule on having a posting format for designs isn't a bad thing. It allows folks to see the designs and make their points in favor of or against or hey here is away to improve it. Yet your stance is for what ever floats the boat of the poster and who cares if the rest of us can read it or not.
And many of us have tried to help him, suggested other programs, I even pointed out to him that there is a document here on Sarna that is a Word format that he could paste his Mega Mek stuff into and it would be very similar to the other programs formats. He didn't even want to discuss that idea, so many of us have tried the civil approach and been rebuffed on it. Yes we could turn the other cheek and ignore him or anyone else, but that is not what this is about. It is about having something as simple as common format that allows for things to be presented in an easy to follow and understand based of the standard given to us since the very first TRO came out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Frabby
05/23/14 01:35 PM
87.164.164.134
|
In my opinion, we don't need rules here forcing people to adhere to a certain format when they're posting ideas or designs. If you don't like the format offered, or find it hard to work with, then you do have two options already:
- politely inform the other party of the unresolved questions you have about the design, or
- refrain from commenting on the improperly presented idea altogether.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 03:29 PM
70.118.139.48
|
As has been said, we have tried to tell the current poster about how to improve the posting and he choses to ignore us and tells us he feels certain things aren't needed on a design information layout.
And your second option won't work, since stuff is posted here it is an expectation for it to be seen, understood and commented on.
Clearly I do not understand the apparent issue with asking for a standard posting format for designs that allows for ease of reading and give us nothing that isn't already shown by most design programs when the files are exported to text to share, in that they follow the TRO layout when offering the data to us.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
05/23/14 05:23 PM
198.45.174.125
|
Karagin, I completely understand your wish for consistency. That is my main line of work at the wiki. People add things to there all the time that aren't perfectly completed, so I help with fixing them. This rule you proposed would be like telling people that edit at the wiki "if you mess up any grammar/formatting/data when adding info, you get a warning". This would keep the wiki very tidy but wouldn't allow for much addition. People would be scared to add stuff. The same goes for the forum. If you copy and paste it here and miss the last line, should you really be punished? This just seems a little extreme in the way that it deals with people's posting.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 06:21 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I don't see it that way. I think it would show that there is a level expected from posters who are sharing information to do so in a manner that allows all to understand it.
Every forum has it's rules of conduct, like this one we are expected to follow, how is having a rule that says hey here is the standard for posting units, please follow it any different then telling us not cuss each other out? I don't see folks not posting here with that rule in place. So why would they be afraid to post if asked to follow a format?
There is very little fun in seeing a new unit posted, clicking on it find that you can't tell if it's a mech or tank or what ever and then all you see is speed, armor and weapons...while that is amazing detail when rolling the dice and using scrap paper for the record sheets, it's not so great for talking about a design.
A warning is all that should be needed, if they don't take the hint then just like other rules the same levels should be taken. It would not stifle any one's ability to post things and in fact I think it would help people understand the mechs or vehicles better.
Can you point to a webpage that has such strict rules that no one post there?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 06:33 PM
70.118.139.48
|
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=174077&page=0&vc=#Post174077
The above is an example of what does get posted, a bit neater then some, but it doesn't tell you what it is or anything about it and assumes your the player can figure it out. But yet it's all okay to post and thus comment on and for some complain about with out anything beginning said.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 07:11 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Here is a purposed idea of a template which should give a simple example of what I am talking about:
Code:Mass:
Chassis:
Power Plant:
Cruising Speed:
Maximum Speed:
Jump Jets:
Jump Capacity:
Armor:
Armament:
Manufacturer:
Primary Factory:
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System:
Equipment Mass
Internal Structure:
Engine
Walking MP:
Running MP:
Jumping MP:
Heat Sinks:
Gyro:
Cockpit:
Armor Factor:
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head
Center Torso
Center Torso (rear)
R/L Torso
R/L Torso (rear)
R/L Arm
R/L Leg
Weapons & Ammo Location Critical Tonnage
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
05/23/14 10:57 PM
198.45.174.125
|
I actually was going to ask for a template, and that one you provided looks easy enough to understand. I think that perhaps this could work if it was abundantly clear to members (current and future) that they have to use this template and tell them the consequences of not using it. I think that this rule does address an issue of consistency, but in the wrong way. To me it seems like a heavy-handed approach at dealing with the topic at hand; what if you just want to propose a vague idea like "What about a 4 PPC Nova Cat"? or the commonplace changes that people say to make it better? Should that really warrant a warning just because they didn't sit down and figure all the stats out? I'm not trying to be aggressive by asking these hypotheticals, but am trying to look at this from every angle.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 11:07 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I am not saying it's the perfect rule, hence why I asked for a discussion about it. I think that by having a format or template we have a starting point. I do understand that some times ideas are just posted like you said an 8 PPC Nova Cat or a 20 Med Laser Hunchback, but those are topics of discussion not mechs posted for comments.
I am open to idea, and I as said it's not perfect but as can be shown if stuff is missing you have no idea really what you are looking at and spend more time figure out the wheel from the rest of the car.
And this is just one issue, I think we have ongoing as I have mentioned the abuse of the rules by the at the time single moderator with no checks or balances. I still stand what I said that the rules need to be revised and several of them merged. Because as it stands, something said by a poster can be considered in violation of several rules all because our one time moderator feels it is and in fact this entire topic could be considered to break almost all of them, given how they are written or how the again at one time single moderator felt.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/23/14 11:19 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Frabby writes:
In my opinion, we don't need rules here forcing people to adhere to a certain format when they're posting ideas or designs. If you don't like the format offered, or find it hard to work with, then you do have two options already:
- politely inform the other party of the unresolved questions you have about the design, or
- refrain from commenting on the improperly presented idea altogether.
Exactly.
If you don't like store's wares, you don't shop there - and you don't call the cops. If you don't like a TV channel's shows, you don't watch it - and you don't call the cops.
You're not being forced into reading Retry's posts. You can ignore them and leave them to languish with no input because they're not working for you.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
05/24/14 12:17 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
Exactly.
If you don't like store's wares, you don't shop there - and you don't call the cops. If you don't like a TV channel's shows, you don't watch it - and you don't call the cops.
You're not being forced into reading Retry's posts. You can ignore them and leave them to languish with no input because they're not working for you.
As a follow-up point about walking away from aggravating threads is that, whether or not Nic orders a new standardized formatting rule into effect, Rule 6 is definitely in effect. Rule 6 includes "no trolling" and "not being confrontational."
What does trolling and being confrontational include? Well, it involves entering a thread and behaving in exactly the same fashion that you know got you warned and banned in the past.
And do you know what changes if Nic insists on a standardized formatting rule? Nothing for users. It will be the moderators' job, not the users' job, to issue the warnings for that new rule. Meanwhile, Rule 6 is still in place and will still get you warned for the same reasons.
So before trying to be all innocuous, polite and on-topic by (for example) asking Retry for clarification about whether another of his under-detailed posts is XL or vodka powered, think instead about just walking away and just ignoring him instead. That path leads to far less warnings and bans, and is a good all-around approach for avoiding headaches on a forum.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
05/24/14 12:42 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Funny how rule 6 is worded since your comments Cray here in this thread could be considered to be in violation of it, unless you are saying that moderators don't have to follow the rules to enforce them, or is this too in violation of Rule 6 in that I am pointing out the issues I see with that rule and 2 and 8 given how easy it is for you to tell me I am pushing the limits of poorly written rules or is there something else?
As for the moderator doing his job, that being you, I think you have failed and have become to bias and I believe it is time for you to step down and move on to other things. Now I may be the only one who feels this way, but I getting it out there since you seem to delight in being above the rules and playing lose and fast over things, and letting others slide and going after me and I do consider your posting above to be breaking the rules, but wait my opinion doesn't count since you will tell me I am breaking the rules by pointing out your bias and failure to be neutral as a moderator.
So how about we return to civil discussion about things and stop with the baiting.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/24/14 01:55 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Having been asked to let thing rest for the time being and having it point out that I have made my point, I will respect the request of the person who sent me the email and explained their take on things.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|