Jump to content

Chaoswolf

Rules change?

Recommended Posts

 

@buglips: I cannot do or say anything else more than ub3r and Cash and MS already said. I would add however that I was not influenced by you, nor am I now, except as a fellow member of this community.

 

I just like some way of working. I don't like other one, found out it does not really work for me. I am not "threatening" to leave, I might chose to take my posts to a place more kind to what I found out works for me. I don't think anybody can have a problem with that.

 

Ryan's last post makes it clear, it seems, that no revision will be done soon. The tone, or what I understood, made it clear. I am very, very frustrated about that, because cause that were better explained in CashWiley's post (and I could just quote it right here, honestly).

 

So it looks like this is a closed thread, and I would rather appreciate if Reaper just said so, because holding my breath for so long is painful, and hurtful for my feelings for the forum, TBH.

We still read every post, and the feedback is useful.

 

There would be two valid reasons to close the thread: One, the commentary could no longer be kept civil, at any level.  Volatile threads filled with invective and threats are closed as a matter of routine.  or Two, we no longer cared to receive further input.

 

Define Soon? I'm not offering a timetable, but I'm not thinking this will take two more years, either.

 

Ask a CAV player to define Soon.... :devil:

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So I have a question. I created a thread in the terrain etc. section, currently called "Baugi's Bases." The purpose of this thread was to show, step by step, how to do different types of bases, mainly for folks who don't have a lot of experience with basing, and want to learn different styles. It was essentially intended as an ongoing tutorial for the community. As it stands, it would seem as though I am no longer able to post in this thread in this way. It makes no sense in my mind to create an entirely new thread for every base I do , or I'd be flooding the section with tiny projects, rather than offering a more cohesive set of strategies, which was the goal. ( Also , yes, the last few posts have been something else entirely, and I'd be happy to have that split.)

 

Is there a way for a community member, under he current rules, to post an ongoing tutorial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok. So I have a question. I created a thread in the terrain etc. section, currently called "Baugi's Bases." The purpose of this thread was to show, step by step, how to do different types of bases, mainly for folks who don't have a lot of experience with basing, and want to learn different styles. It was essentially intended as an ongoing tutorial for the community. As it stands, it would seem as though I am no longer able to post in this thread in this way. It makes no sense in my mind to create an entirely new thread for every base I do , or I'd be flooding the section with tiny projects, rather than offering a more cohesive set of strategies, which was the goal. ( Also , yes, the last few posts have been something else entirely, and I'd be happy to have that split.)

 

Is there a way for a community member, under he current rules, to post an ongoing tutorial?

I can see no reason why additional Bases could not be added to an ongoing thread about Bases. This is consistent with previous posts I have made regarding Thread Themes and Scope. To the best of my understanding of the current rules, the way to continue to post an ongoing tutorial is to make sure that any additional and new works within the thread adhere to the theme and scope of the thread, as outlined in the title and first post.

 

As long as the posts remain on topic, (Bases, in your case) this is not an issue. I'm going on a limb and guessing the confusion (for our mods) was caused by the non-bases included in the thread. If this is not so, I am open to other suggestions as to why it would be so.

 

I will be visiting hat thread next and clarifying for myself, although If I have misunderstood your experiences and question, please let me know.

 

 

EDIT:

 

This thread?

http://forum.reapermini.com/index.php?/topic/53639-baugis-bases/

 

I see nothing off-topic in there, content wise, from you. And assuming I have a correct understanding of your question, I see no reason why you could not add more bases for other figures of other projects to part of this tutorial.

 

Does this statement contradict what you have been told by other moderators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok. So I have a question. I created a thread in the terrain etc. section, currently called "Baugi's Bases." The purpose of this thread was to show, step by step, how to do different types of bases, mainly for folks who don't have a lot of experience with basing, and want to learn different styles. It was essentially intended as an ongoing tutorial for the community. As it stands, it would seem as though I am no longer able to post in this thread in this way. It makes no sense in my mind to create an entirely new thread for every base I do , or I'd be flooding the section with tiny projects, rather than offering a more cohesive set of strategies, which was the goal. ( Also , yes, the last few posts have been something else entirely, and I'd be happy to have that split.)

 

Is there a way for a community member, under he current rules, to post an ongoing tutorial?

I can see no reason why additional Bases could not be added to an ongoing thread about Bases. This is consistent with previous posts I have made regarding Thread Themes and Scope. To the best of my understanding of the current rules, the way to continue to post an ongoing tutorial is to make sure that any additional and new works within the thread adhere to the theme and scope of the thread, as outlined in the title and first post.

 

As long as the posts remain on topic, (Bases, in your case) this is not an issue. I'm going on a limb and guessing the confusion (for our mods) was caused by the non-bases included in the thread. If this is not so, I am open to other suggestions as to why it would be so.

 

I will be visiting hat thread next and clarifying for myself, although If I have misunderstood your experiences and question, please let me know.

 

 

EDIT:

 

This thread?

http://forum.reapermini.com/index.php?/topic/53639-baugis-bases/

 

I see nothing off-topic in there, content wise, from you. And assuming I have a correct understanding of your question, I see no reason why you could not add more bases for other figures of other projects to part of this tutorial.

 

Does this statement contradict what you have been told by other moderators?

 

 

 

 

I think what's tripping people up, myself included, is the requirement that everything be listed in the first page at the creation time of the WIP thread and new items, even in theme, would have to be placed in a new thread because they weren't included at the time of the thread creation.

 

If this is not the rule some clarification would be nice as many of us have asked about this and the way it's been communicated to many of us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think what's tripping people up, myself included, is the requirement that everything be listed in the first page at the creation time of the WIP thread and new items, even in theme, would have to be placed in a new thread because they weren't included at the time of the thread creation.

 

If this is not the rule some clarification would be nice as many of us have asked about this and the way it's been communicated to many of us.

 

I see.  I have tried to be consistent in my message about the Theme, with the potential to include new items, in-theme.

 

I do see that we have not, perhaps, explained this as well as we could have.  Much like when I was 100% incorrect about the index threads much earlier in the is thread, and have since corrected that statement.

 

When we talk about what's included in the original post, we mean that the First Post is setting the expectations for the audience, moderators included, as to what content to expect.  A rocketship does not belong in "My Elven Village", for example (although I recognize you could probably work it into your village narrative, you probably know what I mean even if the specific example could be debated).  In *MOST* cases, we believe that the first post and title of the thread clearly define the contents - "all of the minis in my D&D campaign" or "my conversion of Nethyrmaul".  Some themes may be more open - Marvel Golems is a great example of a theme that included more figures than was originally expected, but stayed 'on-topic' as it were (and note, please, I am not referring to off-topic chatter, that is a whole different kettle of fish).  Malefactus' Goblin Village is another Theme that is growing over time, as more goblin buildings are added.

 

Does this mean you can't add (to "My D&D Campaign) a new Character if a PC dies or a new player joins, simply because they were not present in Post #1? Not at all.  I am sorry if it came across as that.  What we don't want to see in that thread is your 40k minis (open a new thread) or your experiments with OSL that aren't relevant to the campaign (again, new thread).  OSL experiments relevant to the thread *absolutely* belong, just as a new PC, or replacement PC or a new Boss Monster.

 

Is this a more clear example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I think what's tripping people up, myself included, is the requirement that everything be listed in the first page at the creation time of the WIP thread and new items, even in theme, would have to be placed in a new thread because they weren't included at the time of the thread creation.

 

If this is not the rule some clarification would be nice as many of us have asked about this and the way it's been communicated to many of us.

 

I see.  I have tried to be consistent in my message about the Theme, with the potential to include new items, in-theme.

 

I do see that we have not, perhaps, explained this as well as we could have.  Much like when I was 100% incorrect about the index threads much earlier in the is thread, and have since corrected that statement.

 

When we talk about what's included in the original post, we mean that the First Post is setting the expectations for the audience, moderators included, as to what content to expect.  A rocketship does not belong in "My Elven Village", for example (although I recognize you could probably work it into your village narrative, you probably know what I mean even if the specific example could be debated).  In *MOST* cases, we believe that the first post and title of the thread clearly define the contents - "all of the minis in my D&D campaign" or "my conversion of Nethyrmaul".  Some themes may be more open - Marvel Golems is a great example of a theme that included more figures than was originally expected, but stayed 'on-topic' as it were (and note, please, I am not referring to off-topic chatter, that is a whole different kettle of fish).  Malefactus' Goblin Village is another Theme that is growing over time, as more goblin buildings are added.

 

Does this mean you can't add (to "My D&D Campaign) a new Character if a PC dies or a new player joins, simply because they were not present in Post #1? Not at all.  I am sorry if it came across as that.  What we don't want to see in that thread is your 40k minis (open a new thread) or your experiments with OSL that aren't relevant to the campaign (again, new thread).  OSL experiments relevant to the thread *absolutely* belong, just as a new PC, or replacement PC or a new Boss Monster.

 

Is this a more clear example?

 

 

That's perfectly clear.  Thanks, as it resolves my biggest issue with the new rules and means I will be able to continue updating my Jade Regent WIP thread.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to be clear.  My original explanation may have contributed to some confusion, so I would like to clarify this.
 
http://forum.reapermini.com/index.php?/topic/55914-rules-change/?p=923389

 Our guideline is "Is it part of the first post, or should it be? Then same thread. If not, new thread."

The phrase "or should it be" above was me trying to say "if it matches the theme of the first post" (i.e. it would have been in the first post if the thing had existed/I had started on it at that time.)
 
I can see that this was not sufficiently clear.
 
 

the issue is more posting new (and especially unrelated) things into the same show off thread over an extended period of time rather than several minis being posted at once.. Whether you are posting a single mini or a group of mini's you are still only showing off one "thing".

The "start a new thread" rule is not applicable for 'new' models, but for 'new AND unrelated' models.

 

That AND is the key. 

 

EDIT: I see you posted while I was busy over-explaining.  Sorry.

Edited by Reaperbryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it contradicted my own interpretation of the rules. Glad to see they're a little more inclusive than I had thought. I hadn't read your last couple of posts here prior to coming to this conclusion, which was clearly silly of me. Much appreciated, Brian.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to be clear.  My original explanation may have contributed to some confusion, so I would like to clarify this.

 

http://forum.reapermini.com/index.php?/topic/55914-rules-change/?p=923389

 Our guideline is "Is it part of the first post, or should it be? Then same thread. If not, new thread."

The phrase "or should it be" above was me trying to say "if it matches the theme of the first post" (i.e. it would have been in the first post if the thing had existed/I had started on it at that time.)

 

I can see that this was not sufficiently clear.

 

 

the issue is more posting new (and especially unrelated) things into the same show off thread over an extended period of time rather than several minis being posted at once.. Whether you are posting a single mini or a group of mini's you are still only showing off one "thing".

The "start a new thread" rule is not applicable for 'new' models, but for 'new AND unrelated' models.

 

That AND is the key. 

 

EDIT: I see you posted while I was busy over-explaining.  Sorry.

 

Thanks again. Clarifying the original statements will help everyone.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it contradicted my own interpretation of the rules. Glad to see they're a little more inclusive than I had thought. I hadn't read your last couple of posts here prior to coming to this conclusion, which was clearly silly of me. Much appreciated, Brian.

Not silly at all.  15-page threads with a lot of back-and forth can be hard to digest.

 

I am saddened to think that much of this bad blood could have been avoided had my post on the 25th been more clear.  In trying for brevity (I believe shorter rules are better than legalistic and lengthy ones) I may have undersold that key fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that, Bryan, thank you. This makes a lot more sense to me and I'm down with themed threads as well. I have 2 of them going right now with a Star Wars diorama and a RBG vignette, which I will add to as I add to the projects and still get a lot of great feedback. 

 

The disconnect comes when people don't have "themes" and are a bit all over the place with whatever strikes their fancies such as working on 5 figures (not themed) then they see 2-3 others they rather be working on (not themed) and add to their consolidated thread. I could see the compromise to these types of threads being "monthly threads" for miscellaneous projects, the "theme" could be that month itself. Then you wouldn't see such bloated threads, but during that month the people who like consolidated get what they want (for the most part) and after the month they can easily start another misc thread for the next month, which makes it easier on the mods to moderate.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My general rule of thumb is If I can give it a concise title, it's probably one theme.  Everything I did this week.  A Dungeon Battle. A group of Adventurers. What I painted last Month: a WIP journey across 31 days.  

 

So long as the title is clear and the content remains connected to the title.

 

I think that this is a very fair and reasonable way to do things. It provides a fair bit of latitude for people to work with. Forex, if I were to start a consolidated thread with the stated purpose of building and painting a full size (10,000 to 100,000 depending on what source you believe)   space marine legion, that would be cool. If fantasy elves and orcs starting appearing in it, not so much. That should be a separate thread(s). Basically, if there's any sort of logical theme that links everything in the thread together, fair game.

 

(On a side note, I'm well on my to the lower end of that goal; FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, SOMEONE STOP ME!!!)

 

I'd just like to see some kind of compromise come of all this so that everyone is happy with things. The best things come from compromise.

 

I approve of this.

 

We are quite flexible on our definition of project, as several others have discovered, and would much prefer to be able to work with this community to make sure everyone's projects are well represented, in a manner that encourages participation and ease-of-access, than to work against you all.

 

If you will give us the time that we are asking for to test the guidelines, going back to a system that served this board well for a decade, then we will, in return, look at the spirit of the rules, and the spirit of the project, to determine if a split would be beneficial to the cohesiveness of project discussion, or detrimental to it.  If after we have had a chance to look over the actual in-use results of this policy (as we have had 2 years to see the actual results of the policy before this reversion was put into effect), we are all in agreement, then we will work towards other solutions.

 

 

 

Is this a fair and acceptable request?

Yes, I believe that it is.

 

 

 

ETA---Bryan hit most of my points while I was typing; I think his clarifications may be just what the doctor ordered.

Edited by Chaoswolf
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhhh, thanks for that clarification, Bryan. I think that was a major point of confusion, but now that it's been explained, I'm much happier with this rule, and this feels like the compromise a lot of people were hoping for, even if it was your original intent. It felt like you were confining threads to one mini, or at least no more than several, which felt much too restrictive, but really you were just trying to ensure all threads had a specific focus and theme. I can live without "anything goes" threads as long as ongoing, growing threads are allowed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

ETA---Bryan hit most of my points while I was typing; I think his clarifications may be just what the doctor ordered.

 

So yes, it is beginning to look to me like I was not clear enough when I first explained it.  

 

*sigh*

 

I'm really sorry everybody.  I thought I was clearer than I actually was, and had I been clearer I am sure much of the unpleasantness could have been avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all good. Stuff happens. ::):

 

I sorta figured that there was a fair bit of miscommunication from all sides going on.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×