Re: RGRA politcs - meta issue of GB, spoilers and code diving

> I just don't understand how it got to this when you seem to want to
> sincerely add to the general good. Can't we all just get along?

>
> I'm not sure exactly what the history is between you and Andy. I don't
> know if or when or how you submitted the changes.

Well a brief history of how it started. Very long ago I offered to do some
HTML work over the appendices (by that time only J-Monsters was looking good
as I rememeber), this was widely accepted, I edited and initially 'improved'
the GB. Even that time it was not just HTML changes, for example I extracted
atrifact info from appendix L into nice tables in app A,B etc, as well as
made corrections whenever I found something is wrong. After a week or so,
the more HTML-ized and corrected GB appeared on Andy's site. It is also true
that there exist a bunch of YAGBU's which corrected my work (for example two
columns were incorrectly switched etc). Most folks completely forgot about
my work afterwards.
Later I offered the same, seeing no progress is made, mainly on many tables
in chapter 0 (they still look ugly in the original), did a lot of work on
HTML at home, as well as few additions. I published URL where the entire GB
was available for online viewing and offered it to be used on Andy's site. I
didn't call it IGB, I just liked to see it on Andy's site like happened
earlier. It never happened however. I admit I made a mistake of not
publishing the exact changes from the start, and then it was too late.
Perhaps the few initial contents changes/additions could have been part of
the reason why Andy actually refused to copy over. I also admit it was
mistake not to inform Andy beforehand about my intentions. However
considering it was not that hard first time (I also had not contacted Andy
beforehand), I was not expecting troubles.
After Andy's refusal, some people started to point out at my additions being
illegal and even managed to get down the site. Seeing there is no way out, I
created new site, published just the improvements and offered the entire
contents via email. Up to date, quite a lot of people requested IGB, and it
is now again available for download, but not for online browsing.


> I guess reading back on the thread at the time my question was why you
> just didn't agree to make your own guide book from scratch. No one is
> saying that you can't do that. I think that would be a welcomed
> addition. No one is saying you couldn't choose to include whatever
> data you see fit - not even Thomas. He's simply saying that people
> should quit extracting data in certain ways, but he's not demanding
> that parts of the GB be scrubbed. He's not demanding that existing
> data be purged or lost. Andy and Vladimir both appear to me to be
> going further than Thomas asked, perhaps because he was rather
> ambiguous. No one is demanding you do the same (or that I do the
> same).
>

JarrE in this thread already very correctly pointed out, that doing a new GB
from scratch is a waste of time, stating clearly where the info comes from
should be sufficient - it is I think clearly stated - if not mentioned
otherwise, the entire context comes from Andy's GB except for the
improvements listed on my site. However, if someone offers to rephrase (and
add!) to the entire GB contents, maybe invent different (better!) topics
grouping so the TOC could be rewritten as well, then I have nothing against
such activity, I'll remove all info about Andy Williams and we can call the
entire project otherwise. I suppose doing so would be at least a full week
job for skilled person - must have both language and ADOM skills. Myself, as
a not native speaker, am not able do it very good even if I wanted to. And
then again, doing so is a waste of time in my eyes.

> It strikes me that you want the GB to be more of a manual or reference
> work. Comprehensive, tabulated, itemised, detailed, extensive. That's
> not exactly what a guide book implies to my mind (more to the point: to
> Andy's mind I guess). The solution is obvious -- write a different
> document for the different requirements

Guidebook and reference manual should come together. Splitting these two
very related things is at no point, surely uncomfortable for the player.
Anyways, If I were to create a manual/reference book, where to grab the
majority of the info - it is again the GB.

> I'll assume Andy simply has
> a different concept of what would best fit into the GB than you do.
> Well isn't that perfectly alright? It doesn't contradict the principle
> you appeal to, namely, "knowledge belongs to world"

We can all agree that some information cannot be derived just by experience
and save scumming. For example determining the starting attribute
modifications would require huge (and boring) statistical effort. And it is
never possible to quantitate various effects up to the dices (like 10d6).
For me, only the exact dice info is a true knowledge, not a sheet of
statistical data. For example, I like to know what amout of corruption a
corruption trap causes. Using AdomBot, I can get a rough idea, but I'll
never know if it's 10d8 or 15d5+10 or whatever. Get to know this just with
savescumming looks outright impossible. So by knowledge, I mean a true
knowledge, and I assume Vladimir means the same. Concluding, "no code
diving" principle DOES contradict principle "knowledge belongs to the word".


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "To whom it may be concerned" or "To whom it may concern"?
    ... I hope your corrections to the European CEO's Christmas greeting were ... I gave you two corrections in my sole sentence. ... Seriously, Andy, if you ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: tell Murray its civilian expressing inside a beach
    ... Just griping concerning a truth on the memory is too doubtful for ... Andy to give it. ... Agha's fund maintains except for our principle after we ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Mackie Onyx 400F
    ... Andy wrote: ... That should hold you until the Mackie forum gets back up. ... maintenance on Friday afternoons. ... I think there's a principle of tech ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Select a Combobox - display results in 2 others
    ... the user would change the Salary amount using the combobox, ... As for the data being static, in Principle Yes, although i could change this ... >Andy S via OfficeKB.com was telling us: ...
    (microsoft.public.word.vba.general)
  • Re: Mackie Onyx 400F
    ... Andy wrote: ... That should hold you until the Mackie forum gets back up. ... maintenance on Friday afternoons. ... I think there's a principle of tech ...
    (rec.audio.pro)