264 réponses à ce sujet

[MagicalMaster]

henesua wrote...

Then you need to better explain yourself. Please do so.

1. He uploads module version 1 to the vault and sends you a copy
2. You post the copy you got
3. Someone downloads it from you and finds a bug
3. They email the author and the author fixes the bug
4. The author uploads a fixed version to the vault, which is version 2
5. But anyone who downloads it from you will get the bugged version 1

#5 is the problem, I believe.  Invisig0th doesn't want to fix a bug in his module and then have people still downloading the bugged module from your end.  Because it's less fun for them and makes him look bad.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 12 février 2013 - 08:42 .

[henesua]

Invisig0th wrote...
You have not yet proposed anything which does not include me sending you my module and you uploading it

That is incorrect. I pointed out above that I'd have to come up with how to accommodate within the challenge people not sending in submissions.

Invisig0th wrote...
Say if you were to (god forbid) get hit by a bus, my buggy version 1.0 of that module would be available forever online, and I would have no say in the matter at all. None of that is acceptable to me, not even for a single day.

Wrong. This isn't just on me. I created a separate login and email for the ABC AND I've got insurrance with Rolo on top of it.

Invisig0th wrote...
So how exactly are you giving everyone what they want? By saying that people that don't do it the way you want can simply not participate? That stretches the definition of the word "solution" to the breaking point.

You are the only one saying these things.

Invisig0th wrote...
At this point, I'm honestly not concerned with whether you address the concerns I brought up or not. The things I've mentioned were reasonable.  The content and tone of your responses were not. I will not be spending my valueable free time providing content to support this (or any future) initiative of yours.

Well done.

While I hope that you do participate, what you do is entriely your choice and has nothing to do with anything I have presented here. 

[henesua]

MagicalMaster wrote...

henesua wrote...

Then you need to better explain yourself. Please do so.

1. He uploads module version 1 to the vault and sends you a copy
2. You post the copy you got
3. Someone downloads it from you and finds a bug
3. They email the author and the author fixes the bug
4. The author uploads a fixed version to the vault, which is version 2
5. But anyone who downloads it from you will get the bugged version 1

#5 is the problem, I believe.  Invisig0th doesn't want to fix a bug in his module and then have people still downloading the bugged module from your end.  Because it's less fun for them and makes him look bad.

This was already addressed in the proposal where the submittal is removed from the vault page.

I also stated that I was looking into a means of including people that did not want to make a submission, but that was repeatedly ignored.

[Invisig0th]

MagicalMaster,

Thanks for laying this out as you did. You are 100% correct. So it seems that my previous explanation was sufficient to make the problem clear to an open-minded reader.

Does this fiarly straightforward concern seem unreasonable to anyone other than Henesua? Even with the very best of intentions, mistakes happen. There are all sorts of scenarios that end with an author getting put in a bad position of supporting a buggy module. Folks disappear from the community all the time, and having one and only one current version of a module facilitates troubleshooting. It's entirely reasonable for any module author to ensure that they have the ability to address problems with their work without being forced to unnecessarily go through a third party, particularly when no compelling reason for the third party to be involved has been presented.

Henesua, I suspect your resistance to address the issue here is related to your concern that seperate submission pages would somehow interfere with your (unannounced?) plans regarding some kind of summary of reviews of the month's submitted modules. As far as I can see, reviews weren't mentioned at all in the challenge guidelines, and as a module builder I personally could not give a fig about reviews. I'm certainly not putting myself in a bad situation simply because someone else has intentions for my work that they haven't shared with me yet.

I'll say it again -- go back and look at how the CCC was handled. They encouraged participation by being helpful and inclusive every step of the way. Anyone intending to solicit participation in a similar community project would be wise to review how  they promoted and conducted that effort. It is an excellent example of the kind of community collaboration you can achieve if you take a friendly approach and respect the people creating the content. After all, without the content you ain't got no challenge.

[Invisig0th]

henesua wrote...
I also stated that I was looking into a means of including people that did not want to make a submission, but that was repeatedly ignored.

Not true. Nobody is ignoring that. But all you've done is said that you may address it at some point in the future. That's not the same thing as solving the problem, and it helps me not one bit with regard to Februrary's challenge.

You appear to be saying that you will REFUSE any submission for February unless you can upload it to NWVault yourself.  Is that true, or isn't it? I realize you may not understand why people might not like that, but I assure you that I won't be the only one to express concerns about doing it that way.

So the net result of your "helpful assistance" here has been to reduce the number of submitted modules in February by one. I think we can all agree that is a terribly disappointing outcome, and it probably should have been handled better. I would *strongly* encourage you to consult with some of the more experienced members of the NWN community in order to better learn how to foster an atmosphere that is more inclusive and more respectful of authors' feelings regarding how their work is published.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 10:42 .

[henesua]

Invisig0th wrote...
Henesua, I suspect your resistance to address the issue here is related to your concern that seperate submission pages would somehow interfere with your (unannounced?) plans regarding some kind of summary of reviews of the month's submitted modules.

Resistance? I do not think that word means what you think that word means.

I've stated that I would have to come up with a means to accommodate participants who do not submit their work.

And I've oferred to take down your work so that there isn't a buggy duplicate.

Two possibilities offerred to work with you. One meets you 100% of the way. The other 99%. You however are fixated on the unlikely possibility that I'll be hit by a bus (or something) before I can respond to your request to take your submission down once you issue a subsequent release - while completely ignoring that I have offerred to figure out how to accommodate no submittal.

[edit] oh wait - you acknowledged it after the fact - while I was writing this post. So your problem is that I didn't come up with it fast enough for you.

Invisig0th wrote...
I'll say it again -- go back and look at how the CCC was handled. They encouraged participation by being helpful and inclusive every step of the way. Anyone intending to solicit participation in a similar community project would be wise to review how  they promoted and conducted that effort. It is an excellent example of the kind of community collaboration you can achieve if you take a friendly approach and respect the people creating the content. After all, without the content you ain't got no challenge.

I agree. And that is why I am working with you regardless of your continuous hostility. Not once have I thrown my hands in the air and given up on you.

But since you obviously don't want to participate anyway, I am probably wasting my time.

Modifié par henesua, 12 février 2013 - 10:42 .

[Invisig0th]

henesua wrote...
Two possibilities offerred to work with you. One meets you 100% of the way. The other 99%. You however are fixated on the unlikely possibility that I'll be hit by a bus (or something) before I can respond to your request to take your submission down once you issue a subsequent release - while completely ignoring that I have offerred to figure out how to accommodate no submittal.

I can assure you that neither one of those things actually addresses my concerns. You don't change that by simply stating over and over again "Yes they do!"

I'm not explaining it to you again, but it's clear that the other folks participating in this thread understand the concerns I've brought up, and can appreciate why someone might be concerned about such things. What you have proposed literally DOES NOT address the problem under discussion. At best, it hopes to address it at some point in the future. Sorry, that is just not acceptable to me as a module author. I suspect many module authors would feel the same way.

As for edits, stop hitting F5 so much. Based on your posts, you could probably use some cool down time between posts.

I won't be discussing this with you any further. Feel free to continue your argument with the next person who is not comfortable with you managing their Vault submissions for them. Good luck with that.

This never had to become an argument. You don't have to appreciate my personal concerns, but it was perfectly reasonable for me to mention them. People considering participating in your Adventure Building Challenge can make up their own minds as to how reasonable you have been here, and whether or not that impacts their decision to participate in your project.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 10:58 .

[Rolo Kipp]

<shaking his head...>

I think I'm going to post one last time here, just because I hate to see what I think is misunderstanding enflame tempers.
I shouldn't.
I *know* I shouldn't. My own advice to me is to just walk away.
But I'm gonna say something anyway.

Invisig0th wrote...
...As things stand, you appear to be stating that you will REFUSE any submission for February unless you can upload it to NWVault yourself....

Where does he say that? Where is he being hostile toward anyone?

Oh, I see him being defensive when you post aggressive things like "you are not 'trusting' authors", "Forbidding folks from maintaining their own ", "I am shocked by your strident opposition", "You are insisting", "they NEVER were so hostile " and "being forced to unnecessarily go through a third party".
(I left a lot of other buzz words out).

You do some pretty neat things, Invisig0th. And you are obviously intelligent.

Why are you attacking Henesua?
Just answer me that, and I won't say another mumbling word.

Promise.

<...ruefully>

[Invisig0th]

Rolo Kipp wrote...

Invisig0th wrote...
...As things stand, you appear to be stating that you will REFUSE any submission for February unless you can upload it to NWVault yourself....

Where does he say that? Where is he being hostile toward anyone?

I believe you are reading waaaay too much into a few capital letters there. I was simply restating that Henesua has made it clear that entries for February that cannot be uploaded to NWVault by Henesua are ineligible. In what way is that not "refusing" those submissions? Either way, clearly not a personal attack of any sort.

I am not personally attacking anyone here, nor have I done so at any point. I am (in my mind, fairly mildly) criticizing what seen to be counterproductive restrictions and stipulations, and explaining why I as a builder find them to be problematic to the point of not participating. Yes, I'm passionate about NWN -- we all are, or we wouldn't still be here.  But anyone who is reading this as some sort of personal attack is completely misreading the posts. I realize people tend to overreact on the Internets and take things personally when people question their ideas, but just because someone is forceful in their objection doesn't mean that objection is some sort of personal slam. If you and Henesua are reading things into my posts that aren't there...well, I can't do anything about that other than encourage you to read other people's posts exactly as posted, and resist the urge to fill things in between the lines that simply aren't there.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 11:13 .

[henesua]

Invisig0th wrote...

Rolo Kipp wrote...

Invisig0th wrote...
...As things stand, you appear to be stating that you will REFUSE any submission for February unless you can upload it to NWVault yourself....

Where does he say that? Where is he being hostile toward anyone?

I believe you are reading quite a bit too much into the caps there. I was simply restating that Henesua has made it clear that entries for February that cannot be uploaded to NWVault by Henesua are ineligible. In what way is that not "refusing" submissions?

Where did I state that?

Please disabuse yourself of that notion, and please stop putting that out there. You are confusing other participants with your claims.

[Invisig0th]

Sorry, are you now saying that you will accept submissions that are not sent to you as a compressed file and not uploaded to the February ABC Vault submission page? Where, exactly, did you state that? If you are not accepting submissions like those I just described, then you are in fact "refusing" those submissions. That's what the word "refuse" means, and the statement stands as posted.

Just to be clear, I'm referencing this specific statement you made:

henesua wrote...
I want a record of the modules as they were submitted for the challenge, and a central repository for the
modules during the review period immediately after they are submitted.

Sorry, I am simply not comfortable with you uploading my module on your "central respository" page. I have made that quite clear. So unless you have changed the rules and are now gladly accepting entries that are posted seperately to the NWVault, then you haven't actually addressed my primary concern in any way, shape, or form.

Mind you, you don't HAVE TO address my concerns here, but please don't say you did if you didn't. And honestly, it's up to me to determine if your proposed changes actually address my specific concerns. So far, they don't.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 11:27 .

[Rolo Kipp]

<looking very...>

Invisig0th wrote...
I believe you are reading waaaay too much into a few capital letters there. I was simply restating that Henesua has made it clear that entries for February that cannot be uploaded to NWVault by Henesua are ineligible. In what way is that not "refusing" those submissions? Either way, clearly not a personal attack of any sort.

I am not personally attacking anyone here, nor have I done so at any point.
...
If you and Henesua are reading things into my posts that aren't there...well, I can't do anything about that other than encourage you to read other people's posts exactly as posted, and resist the urge to fill things in between the lines that simply aren't there.

Oh.

Ok, then.

Whew! 
*looks embarrassed* 
Glad I completely misunderstood the last dozen or so posts.

I was worried.

<...relieved>

Modifié par Rolo Kipp, 12 février 2013 - 11:19 .

[henesua]

Invisig0th wrote...

Sorry, are you now saying that you will accept submissions that are not sent to you as a compressed file and not uploaded to the February ABC Vault submission page? Where, exactly, did you state that?

If you are not accepting submissions like those I just described, then you are in fact "refusing" those submissions. That's what the word "refuse" means.

Just to be clear, I'm referencing this specific statement:

henesua wrote...
I want a record of the modules as they
were submitted for the challenge, and a central repository for the
modules during the review period immediately after they are submitted.

Sorry, I am not comfortable with you uploading my module on your "central respository" page. I have made that quite clear.  Unless you are accepting entries that are posted seperately, then you haven't actually addressed my concern at all.

I said that I would work on coming up with a solution for participants that did not want to submit their work.

It has nothing to do with what I do or do not accept. I have stated what I want. But that is not the same thing. I am sorry that you read into that more than I stated.

[Invisig0th]

henesua wrote...
I said that I would work on coming up with a solution for participants that did not want to submit their work.

It has nothing to do with what I do or do not accept. I have stated what I want. But that is not the same thing. I am sorry that you read into that more than I stated.

Nope. Sorry, but I didn't read anything into it that wasn't there. Saying you'll think about a solution to the problem is not the same thing as actually having a solution to the problem today. Perhaps that distinction was lost on you.

Either way, I believe what you are doing here is confirming that any submission for February that you are not allowed to upload to NWVault will not be accepted. Is that correct, or not?

If so, that makes zero sense. Doesn't it seem a shame to you that fewer people will participate if you insist on exclusing such entries? What harm, exactly, will ensue if you simply provide a link to the module submission page for those who want to control their own content? Is there any specific reason behind your refusal, or are you just a "my way or the highway" kind of guy? I honestly do not understand your position at all, and you have entirely failed to support it.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 11:40 .

[henesua]

Invisig0th wrote...

henesua wrote...
I said that I would work on coming up with a solution for participants that did not want to submit their work.

It has nothing to do with what I do or do not accept. I have stated what I want. But that is not the same thing. I am sorry that you read into that more than I stated.

Nope. Sorry, but I didn't read anything into it that wasn't there. Saying you'll think about a solution to the problem is not the same thing as actually having a solution to the problem today. Perhaps that distinction was lost on you.

Either way, I believe what you are doing here is confirming that any submission for February that you are not allowed to upload to NWVault will not be accepted. Is that correct, or not?

If so, that makes zero sense. Doesn't it seem a shame to you that fewer people will participate if you insist on exclusing such entries? What harm, exactly, will ensue if you simply provide a link to the module submission page for those who want to control their own content? Is there any specific reason behind your refusal, or are you just a "my way or the highway" kind of guy? I honestly do not understand your position at all, and you have entirely failed to support it.

Please stop projecting.

It is this simple: If you want to participate, I'll work with you.

I have my preferences which I have stated, but never did I state that I had the power to validate or invalidate anyone's contribution. I frankly do not have that power. No one does.

You however will get nothing further from me today. If you can show some patience, we can work together.

[Pstemarie]

Standing by with a bucket of water...

I'm not sure what's so difficult here for you Invisigoth. If you don't like the criteria just don't participate. It's really that simple. It'd be a shame because you're a good author...that 1.69 excel spreadsheet of spells.2da is...interesting. 

Modifié par Pstemarie, 13 février 2013 - 12:42 .

[Invisig0th]

And if indeed "them's the rule's, then I have no problem. What I'm not getting here is a straight answer one way or another, and I don't understand why that would happen. Someone needs to state clearly whether or not modules that are solely maintained by the author are in or out.Seems pretty clear to me, but still no straight answer.

I'm not scrambling to pull together a module in the the remaining two weeks if there is any chance that my module would not be included. Based on the rules stated in this thread, it would not be included. Can anyone honestly tell me why that should be a mystery rather than a simple yes or no answer?

[MagicalMaster]

henesua wrote...

It is this simple: If you want to participate, I'll work with you.

How about this as a solution?

If people want to, they can upload their work to the Vault and email you the link and notification.

You can then immediately download the module and you have an archived original version for your purpose.

The author can then also easily update their module quickly if they find bugs.

Any objection to that?

[Invisig0th]

Pstemarie wrote...
I'm not sure what's so difficult here for you Invisigoth. If you don't like the criteria just don't participate. It's really that simple.

Yeah, but that's not what's going on here at all. I'm trying to find out if can submit a module that I solely maintain distribution of or not. Between the posted guidelines and Henesua's responses, it's simply not clear whether that is allowed. Henesua appears to not want to say one way or the other. So it's not that I don't like the criteria -- it's that I've asked for a clarification and have still not received a straight answer one way or the other. There's been a lot of "I didn't say X" and "I already answered your question" type stuff going back and forth, but nothing by way of an actual answer tot hat question. The best I've gotten is a begrudging "I'll work with you", which isn't really an answer to the question asked.

Is it reasonable to set up a situation where I might work on a module only to find out that it doesn't get included in the challenge due to someone's failure to clarify the criteria in question?  Is it unreasonable for me to ask for a clear answer before I put all that work in? This seems reasonable to me -- what do you think?

(And even if I just outright did not like the criteria, you're saying that my only option would be to not participate? That doesn't sound like the NWN community I know.  It is obviously reasonable in that situation to make suggestions regarding how to expand the pool of prospective participants, and I would think the NWN community would always welcome such suggestions in the inclusive spirit with they are given.)

Modifié par Invisig0th, 13 février 2013 - 01:43 .

[Invisig0th]

MagicalMaster wrote...

The author can then also easily update their module quickly if they find bugs.

Any objection to that?

Excellent suggestion and question. I'll be interested to hear the answer. As long as no one is uploading my module to NWVault, I'd be fine with that. It's possible Henesua had this in mind as an option, but I can't see that he said that anywhere above.

There is no reason that this discussion needs to get any more heated than this exchange right here. We are simply a bunch of people who love the game discussing how to make this little project work better. There's no shame in not having all the answers, and no one should take it personally if their ideas don't turn out to be the best ones. I really don't see where the friction is coming from.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 13 février 2013 - 01:41 .

[Tarot Redhand]

Having a size 12 mouth and a foot that readily fits in there...

I wish to voice my puzzlement over Invisig0th's concerns. As one who entered the GOG contest, I would like to know what difference you see between the terms and conditions of that contest and what is trying to be done with the ABC. Nobody at the time had a problem with submitting a potentially buggy module for the GOG contest. So why are you worried about it now that there is no prize involved. It is quite clear to me that the ABC is the module building equivalent of the ccc. Yes modules can more complex and therefore more prone to bugs. So what. Going back to the GOG example I did actually rework and publish my contest entry independantly after the contest. So why have you got a problem with this. I know that I can be quite the control-freak on occassion, but not this time. I have no problem with the terms and conditions of the ABC and I don't understand why you are quite so excersized about them.

To put it another way, if the ABC is to be the module building equivalent of the ccc then it is blindingly obvious then all the modules will be submitted through one person so that it can all be loaded onto the vault in one go. I beleive that this has been stated a number of times in the spat you seem determined to have in this thread.

Sheesh, if you don't like working for other people, work for yourself ie try setting up and running a rival challenge under your own terms and conditions. Otherwise, sheesh this got past boring ages ago.

TR

Modifié par Tarot Redhand, 13 février 2013 - 01:42 .

[Invisig0th]

I'm so sorry you're bored. Entertaining you was my entire purpose here, after all.

I don't know anything about the GOG contest you mentioned. I did not participate, and I would not have participated if my module would have been released by a third party, bugs included. I'm sure there were other authors who passed on that particular project for the same reason. You may not agree with that, but that is their decision.

Tarot Redhand wrote...
To put it another way, if the ABC is to be the module building equivalent of the ccc then it is blindingly obvious then all the modules will be submitted through one person so that it can all be loaded onto the vault in one go.

I completely disagree, for reasons I've already stated above. (Did you read the thread before posting?)  A module is WAY more complicated with regard to bug fixes and ongoing maintenance. Module builders sometimes have to spend months fixing issues found only after release. It's routine stuff. So saying this should work just like the CCC doesn't actually hold water upon examination.

No one is republishing my work, period. I've stated that vvery clearly.  I find that unacceptable, and that is my choice. I'm sorry if you don't respect that decision that I choose to make as a content creator, but I'm certainly not the only one who feels that way about their work.

What I'm asking for here is a simple thumbs up or thumbs down. Either the fact that I don't want to be republished removes me from this challenge or it doesn't.  I asked Hensua if that is a hard requirement or not, and I'm still waiting for an answer (much less the underlying logic for the decision). I fail to see why I can't get a straight yes or no answer to this simple question.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 13 février 2013 - 02:06 .

[Tarot Redhand]

@Invisig0th I have a simple question. Do you have any aliases on the vault? I only ask as you have not published a single module on there under the moniker you are using in this thread.

TR

[Invisig0th]

Nope. Why do you aks? I never claimed to have published a module previously. Does that mean I can't participate here or ask questions, despite having been a Bioware forum member since 2002? Or are you just throwing fire on the flames?

Modifié par Invisig0th, 13 février 2013 - 02:10 .

[Pstemarie]

Move the discussion along, feller. Your criteria's set, your work won't be published by anyone else but you. Henesua's criteria is set, I somehow doubt he'll justify it - nor, like you, should he have to.