RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: Tyranid revison

From: Zerloon <zerloon_at_...>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 02:58:49 +0200

Hi to all!!

I would add my opinion, see below

>Antichrist, the simple truth of revisions changes and such is that maybe
>something in the neighborhood of 18 people or so are those who give us
>the majority of input and participate on votes, that much is clear from
>our polls history. The immense majority are content to trust that small
>group to steer netepic in the right direction. It's somewhat flattering
>if you think of it, it's a great deal of trust placed in those of us
>that constantly work on netepic. We can only strive to be worthy.

This is very good, sadly can be summarized as: someone decide other's
silent please.
IMHO, the matter isn't about pool or people that lurk, is that the 18
people discuss, talk, make opinion and finally Jar put what he wants.

>Having said this not everything that is included or excluded from
>netepic epic is done by majority vote. For example, the units in the
>squat book like the ironhammer and other unique squat vehicles were
>voted in as core around second or third edition netepic, I felt that
>they needed more testing and left them as optional, I explained my
>reasons and they were left as optional until a later revision. The point
>is while I want the maximum discussion and input; I do on occasions have
>to "step in" to insure the rules make sense and don't get too "weird". I
>do this sparingly (very sparingly infact), but it is done. Remember that
>on some points there will be NO agreement, that's okay, but a decision
>regarding what the direction the rules will take still needs to be made
>in some cases so that's why certain points get "edited in" by myself or
>the editor (in this case Jar). If such an addition causes major grief
>then it is revisited and examined, but remember if one person spots such
>a thing and doesn't like it, but no one else is bothered by it then I
>have to assume it's not a major issue and thus it remains unchanged.

Again trouble is not with form or no-agreement point, trouble is that there
are much think NEW, and much Change to rule, that are never be discussed.

>This doesn't mean anyone's particular vision has precedence, but a
>revision can't be successfully completed (or even done) by dissecting
>every point. A poll or determination along these lines is only necessary
>when two or more groups of members are at odds on an issue, to reach
>consensus. But when one group has one opinion and the dissent is one
>member then I cannot justify polling. Mind you its not to mean that that
>sole dissenting voice is to be ignored, in fact in the past we have had
>such voices who have swayed all others to its side making a good case in
>support of that members views. That is good and the purpose of the list.
>But sometimes difference of opinion stems from a persons "taste" or
>personal preference and in that case there is no amount of polling that
>will suffice. That's were I need to make a call.


Actually it's untrue. I agree that we cannot dissect every points... but so
what kind of revision is this?
In your first sentence you said that "the simple truth of revisions changes".
At least let us know if something change...


>Also of note that I only use polls when an obvious difference of opinion
>exists, if something is thrown out there and no one comments then I have
>to consider that an endorsement, because I have no other way to know.
>Rules issues where little or no dissent is expressed are not polled.

But I'd like to know about it!! I don't like to find major change without
chance to argue them...

>In addition, some members have the time and inclination to read the
>draft posted by Jar and others, but most don't, that's okay, members can
>decide how much or little to participate, but obviously those who do
>have a stronger say on what gets done. Sometimes that means a particular
>view gets passed by one vote. That doesn't mean that is the best
>solution, its just a solution. It's not even all that official since
>gamers being gamers will use whatever they think best. But since we
>cannot please everyone something has to be written down and it may not
>be what you or I want. In fact there are things I personally don't like,
>but you win some you lose some.

Peter have you read the Core Book actually in the 5.0 section?
If you do so you should have noticed that there are many things that are
not be discussed, like new flier rules, new artillery piece and so on...
this isn't Jar'draft, is 5.0 book, where actually Jar have put all his
stuff, with or without approval.
Now, if 5.0 is the Jar draft, sorry for all I misunderstand all, but so why
there are a directory called Jar stuff?

>I have no problem with the chaos book, I have seen no massive dissent
>nor do the polls show sizeable detractions to it. Is it a ringing
>endorsement? No. But I can only gauge the opinions of those post, as of
>yet, I cannot read minds.

Neither I have problem, and some time ago I said that there are plenty of
good idea, but this doesn't mind that I accept all and stop. For example
what kind of pool was about new units? Vote units that you don't want
right? And since there are only 18 people that vote people who don't want
there units were few, what wonder!!!!

>SO, breath, calm down, discuss, but please unless any given point can
>generate sufficient opinions against it (and if we need a definition
>anything with 2 or more members against it is sufficient), no polls will
>be generated. Netepic is a collaborative effort, but it cannot be done
>by committee.

I'll take a long breath, and I like to discuss, but is frustrating talk,
talk, talk, propose, vote and so on and see that are all wasted since Jar's
version come first... An example? Space Marine Codex come with rule for all
chapter, good, fine, WOW!! this rules appear AFTER space marine were
discussed... Ok, someone take time, read all and propose... we talk about
Black Templars, about Space Wolf and so on... Jar said that since there are
many thing to do the new codex come in ester... ok, no problem... we talk
about illogicity of actual codex/general army division, there are many
obscure point and tadaaaa two day and a new codex in the section, with Jar
modified army construction and no one change other's propose...
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

>I thought important to go into this because netepic is more than 6 years
>old and there are many people who have been with us for a while but not
>the beginning, so they need to know what has transpired to understand
>how things works.

Frankly speaking this was true before, not now.

>As always input on this subject as any other is always welcome.

Ever ready to call Peter!!


>Primarch

Zerloon

P.S. and about ripper tentacle... I see not to troublesome for my mind that
work differently from chainfist.
Received on Wed May 14 2003 - 00:58:49 UTC