If it is of no concern then he should be allowed to talk about?gajop wrote:And locked it will be. Argh has been gone for way too long for this to be a genuine concern..
It still is relevant to how forum does (not) work today.
Well, I will give a specific example then.smoth wrote:There were many threads that argh personally scuttled because he wanted this or that when it wasn't even his thread. EVEN when asked politely to stay out.
Back in the day lua WAS NOT as powerful as it is now. Many things have been added since. It blew my mind when I was working on trepan's morph gadget all of the older ways he had to do things. (still not done with this gadget so don't ask)
his "lua it" was often without HOW he expected people to lua it.. it was akin to..
"how do I..."
am I going to cite specific examples?
The specific example that in the end caused Argh to be banned, so that the question of original thread is answered instead of talked around.
Supposedly that is a way loooooooong story and any attempt to look at that will be a simplification.
Still, let's look at the thread that happend so close before ban that it surely must hold some relevance.
I will now openly attack argh when he replies to my threads.
Argh gets blamed for "derailing" and "disrupting development efforts".
How did that look like?
Immediately before there had been this thread:
Allow cannons to use beam canon style texturing!
It asks - with one sentence - for different way to render some cannon projectile.
At this point, without any replies yet, such thread should already have been deleted/moved to off topic by moderation.
At very least think about how much of an "development effort" it really represents?
It does not ask: "How do i"?
It contains no thoughts. It contains no ideas how to approach the problem.
It justs demands. Such feature requests have never had much value.
Which imo is valid reply. It is not very detailed but then the original question was not either. Still:Argh wrote:I was actually thinking about this yesterday. Just draw the projectile in unsynced, using a shader. See jK's ribbon trails for a reference. Should be quite possible to do this. It would mean making only smallish changes to the current synced behaviors.
-it suggests using Lua instead of some change in engine
-It gives example where to look for starting point.
-he had already posted similiar things (a particle system thing, similiar to Lups) so had some right to assume that this was feasible way
The responses were automatic denial:
The posts that followed (about CEGs) imo show it was not understood what Argh was suggesting.Forboding Angel wrote:^^ Thissmoth wrote:yeah, no argh.
Obviously Argh was not some visionary Jesus Christ figure either, but in 2010 Lua was already advanced enought to do many wanted things and many feature requests were in fact moot.
Does anyone really believe that someone sees a feature-request thread and thinks "Ooh I will make that." but then upon seeing Argh's Lua-post he changes his mind to "Oh right! Of course it should be like that instead!"
Imo anyone capable of implenting the feature will not be influenced much by that.
...either way, the thread then went to open personal attacks. pro.
Many other threads did go excactly like this, too often they still go like this today.
How to prevent this, see the tl;dr.
While moderation closes this thread, maybe think about how much drama could have been prevented if some other threads had been closed right after the first post.
If your answer is "this thread!" then you only get half the points
If a thread obviously lacks effort and shows no own research, then it should be closed - following long existing forum rules.
Otherwise it will only result in blabla and drama because someone will complain that his oh-so-nice thread got sabotaged or derailed.
Code: Select all
drama = 1 / (effort that went into thread)
Anti-derail-rules can not apply when there are no rails in the first place.
Non-descript title? = Close it.
Thread in wrong subforum to get more attention? = Close it.
Feature-requests that are "help me make this" posts in disguise? = Close it.
Feature-requests that are "debug this for me" posts in disguise? = Close it.
Threads that start with wrong assumption in first post? = Close it.
Threads that show no signs of own research? (half-finished code or "I tried to find it in wiki but..") = Close.
Threads that point to giant heap of stuff and ask "Make this work with my mod"? = Close.