Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:54 pm
No no no... I didn't mean it like that - just pointing out that to be a proof of concept was slightly incorrect. I don't give a monkeys about doing it (and Giskard did it before me anyways!) or credit for whom did what. Anyone can make a tradelane "bend" - it requires no investigation or problem solving!
Essentially I dislike proof of concepts.....they are usually accompanied with requests for credits, often for mundane or simple items where credit is neither due - or being asked for incorrectly.
Here are some examples:
1
2
3 -(not the exact same method, but the exact same idea...)
4
Some of these were not actually originally done by the people whom submitted these files - they were released months after a mod featured them... so essentially the credit request is incorrect - its only proving someone elses work.
Yes, credit should be given to the right person - its only fair if they did all the hard work in working it out. This is why I dislike the idea of POC with regards to a bent tradelane......because its not hard to work out. You change a rotation value - and its done. It aint rocket science at all - not compared to Arghs new method for Open SP etc..........so why a proof of concept?
On the other end of the scale, there are mods that feature no discernable credits - like the crossfire mod, which credits the model makers - but nothing about whom coded what. As it stands, the people who argued the loudest and longest about credit have disappeared - so its not much of an issue anymore.
As a rule of thumb - when you see an idea in a mod, or a feature (or read about it) that would be cool for a mod - then credit should be given to the source of the idea - or the source of the code.
This is the general rule - but always make sure you read the readme - because chances are they got it from someone else - and you should credit the original maker of said feature. Only large changeable items are usually credited in readmes - no-one passes credit for "open source" infomation - like new commodities, weapons, equipment etc - or new systems either. Areas that are more tricky, or took some nifty investigation (like looting, capships missions, capships encounters, factions in missions etc) are things that should certainly be credited.
So why did I pick on this thread again? Well, its back to that word I dislike - proof of concept... it implies that its proof someone thought of this concept so that they maybe credited with its creation. If we all try to get our bit in the limelight glory by submitting POC's for every little bit of coding we attempt (remember, your changing a simple rotation value from 0 to any integer) - then either the credit areas become a complete farce - or people will spend days typing out thanks for everything - and have three times more files in the mod because every single POC has a readme that must be retained with the code!
Now I only moderate forums, and have no say on the site - so you can submit it as a POC if you wish........just making my viewpoint known. Note, I don't use a my "moderators" pseudonym - simply because I am posting my personal take on this area - and not a TLR viewpoint!!!
Edited by - Mike G on 9/8/2005 4:17:29 PM
Essentially I dislike proof of concepts.....they are usually accompanied with requests for credits, often for mundane or simple items where credit is neither due - or being asked for incorrectly.
Here are some examples:
1
2
3 -(not the exact same method, but the exact same idea...)
4
Some of these were not actually originally done by the people whom submitted these files - they were released months after a mod featured them... so essentially the credit request is incorrect - its only proving someone elses work.
Yes, credit should be given to the right person - its only fair if they did all the hard work in working it out. This is why I dislike the idea of POC with regards to a bent tradelane......because its not hard to work out. You change a rotation value - and its done. It aint rocket science at all - not compared to Arghs new method for Open SP etc..........so why a proof of concept?
On the other end of the scale, there are mods that feature no discernable credits - like the crossfire mod, which credits the model makers - but nothing about whom coded what. As it stands, the people who argued the loudest and longest about credit have disappeared - so its not much of an issue anymore.
As a rule of thumb - when you see an idea in a mod, or a feature (or read about it) that would be cool for a mod - then credit should be given to the source of the idea - or the source of the code.
This is the general rule - but always make sure you read the readme - because chances are they got it from someone else - and you should credit the original maker of said feature. Only large changeable items are usually credited in readmes - no-one passes credit for "open source" infomation - like new commodities, weapons, equipment etc - or new systems either. Areas that are more tricky, or took some nifty investigation (like looting, capships missions, capships encounters, factions in missions etc) are things that should certainly be credited.
So why did I pick on this thread again? Well, its back to that word I dislike - proof of concept... it implies that its proof someone thought of this concept so that they maybe credited with its creation. If we all try to get our bit in the limelight glory by submitting POC's for every little bit of coding we attempt (remember, your changing a simple rotation value from 0 to any integer) - then either the credit areas become a complete farce - or people will spend days typing out thanks for everything - and have three times more files in the mod because every single POC has a readme that must be retained with the code!
Now I only moderate forums, and have no say on the site - so you can submit it as a POC if you wish........just making my viewpoint known. Note, I don't use a my "moderators" pseudonym - simply because I am posting my personal take on this area - and not a TLR viewpoint!!!
Edited by - Mike G on 9/8/2005 4:17:29 PM