 | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) That's unjustified (as in, you haven't justified that view, merely stated it) and dismissive and not really a good attitude to take, in my view. (...) um, 6 out of 17 (see (URL) ) isn't really "mostly". It might be a plurality but it's way (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I guess I just disagree with you there :) I think it's better to have a better contest, and perhaps lose a few entries of those who want to sell their models. The increased quality of the interface is worth it, imo. (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Precisely my point, and precisely why putting them on an uneven footing will diminsh (the number of) entries. Better to have a level playing field, one way or the other, and better to set that field to maximise the number of entries. (...) All (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) But entries that are displayed as picture only WILL, by definition, have a diminished effect. It's similar to the difference between seeing a picture of a model as opposed to holding it in your hand. Of course that the model taht allows me to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) of course not. Prior to this thread being posted on lugnet. [snip] (...) Opinions voiced in a private discussion ARE irrelavent once the discussion goes public. If the owners of the opinions want to share them, they're welcome to do so (and (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
