Adventure Building Challenge

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.