 | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) The loss is the chance for us to see the creative effort of another and possibly be inspired by it. The fact that this has become the central issue of my proposed changes flabbergasts me. It takes absolutly no effort on our part to honor an (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with Jacob. Also, the discussion prior to this post doesn't really matter - a decision wasn't made in that discussion, so what people who participated in it thought is really irrelevant. If someone chooses not to participate in the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) OK, I'll accept that and agree that it's a goal of the contest. Going forward though, I think we're still suffering from not having formal organization in place, in an ideal world this proposal would have passed through the steering committee (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with Larry about this issue. I consider imposing a restiction like this to be both excessively exculsionary and extremely petty. -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Well. We may have forgotten to write it down, but I remember it as one of the ideas, when we originally started MOTM (and I wrote the first two versions of the software for MOTM/SOTM). (...) It is kind of hard to arrive at consensus during (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I looked here: (URL) and here: (URL) I didn't see that as an explicitly stated goal. I may have missed it somewhere else though. (...) I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps slightly less than if they are. I think there are lots of learning (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I know. (...) Because learning more about what we can do with the LDraw format (IMO) is one of the aims of the contest. And if the files aren't published we don't learn much. Making sure we are allowed to publish the DAT/MPD files also means (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I think this is an unreasonable restriction. I'd be interested in understanding why this is something that should be insisted on. In the offline discussions prior to presenting this proposal and elsewhere in the thread, there seem to be a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with your ambition. It makes good sense to let MOTM focus strictly on the models and let SOTM cover more broader aspects of presenting models. (...) Makes good sense. And I would prefer that we insist that the submissitted files can be (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with this in spirit. Yes, bring the attention back to the models. However I do have some alternative ideas, or at least variations on the ideas presented. Initially I thought the best way would be to make the dat files available so one (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
