 | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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 —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think this is a moot point, but... The rule could be written so that a contributor must allow/license their work for publication on the contest website, for people to view/examine in relation to the contest, but not for further (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Agreed. -Tim (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Miguel Agullo
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Let's please make this explicitly clear: It is then all right to use the contest as a means to advertise a commercial model or a commercial product based on the model? This is a glaring pitfall if sources are not requested. I thought it would (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) If the model has commercial ties before or during the contest then I might (note the word might) have a problem with the submission. In my opinion, the reasoning behind an author's decision to keep the source private is irrelevent and not the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) So you wouldn't have a problem with someone saying (on their e-shop) "buy the instructions to build this winner of the official Ldraw.org MOTM contest winner"? I would. (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) What's preventing people from doing this now (for both contests)? -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Nothing. That doesn't make it right though. And as part of the proposed change (which I do like a lot, btw!), we have a chance to fix this as well. (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't think it will fix much. There will still be nothing to prevent people from selling kits or high quality posters. Since this issue is only partially addressed by making the source public, I don't think changing the rules of the MOTM (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I would too, IF they weren't the original author. And making the dat public enables that sort of behaviour far too easily. Hence my aversion to it. On the other hand, if they were the author, I think it's perfectly fine. If your model is good (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Steven Lane
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I was, and still am intending to do exactly this, enter Motm and sell instructions for the MOC. I hope to win MOTM and use the forum to generate publicity. I don't see any problem with this. My MOC is quite large and complicated and I've spent (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I found this question somewhat surprising, frankly. (...) I'm hoping that it only appears to be the central issue because the rest of the proposal has met with general agreement and that if this issue can be resolved, it will be speedily (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why? If they don't want to publish the DAT, they can still enter the Scene categrory, because that's all you get without the DAT file, one view of the model (AKA a scene). My personal favorite part of lugnet is clicking on the DAT links and (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Several, actually. (...) I think it is an issue, and worse, I think it highlights an underlying issue of larger import. In an ideal world the Steering Committee would either have given Orion authority to organize the contest as he sees fit, or (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Hmmm, now that you mention it, I do recall something of yours up for a vote. Did you submit a model, or just scenes? Did you ever submit as a model something you were selling? And hey, do we have archives of the old entries? (...) I wouldn't (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Scenes, I guess, as you would think of them now, but some (all?) of them may have been submitted prior to the MoTM/SoTM split. But I've got one in mind for MoTM right now, and I choose MoTM because I think it would be poorly served to be in a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Are they available on the net? According to the Wayback Machine (URL) were once at (URL) but that link is dead now. Don (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Here's the correct link: (URL) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Ahui Herrera
|
| | | | | | | | --snip-- (...) Not completely true. Orion's original post was to get ideas/feedback on his proposed changes. In the end it will be up to him to decide how he sets up the MOTM rules. Why? Simple, this decision is not up to a committee! Case in point (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Well that wasn't just me. Steve and I had discussed it for some time and had wanted to move in that direction. The change actually got a bit of help from Michael Lachmann who asked, and Steve and I gave a thumbs up, then others followed suit. (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I agree. I like Orion's last proposal that allows for DAT/LDR/MPD to be available along with the views. If people don't want to share, and it diminishes their ability to win, that is their choice. A highly superior model without DAT/LDR/MPD (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Miguel Agullo
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, more kudos to Orion for opening the discussion then, even if it got off-topic. I have not changed my views on the matter, but at the same I have certainly gained insight into the mindset of other community members. At the end of the day, (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) To which post? Your post? (...) All the rest of the thread before your post is irrelevant? I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, you may want to consider a rewording to clarify. (...) I disagree. While they may not have been the decision (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Mike Walsh
|
| | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Hr0Mxq.1qoL@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) understanding (...) discussions (...) to be (...) necessary. I too think this is an unreasonable restriction. It has been a while (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) How do you feel about requiring the LDR file in order to generate standardized pics, but keeping the publishing of the LDR file itself optional? Would that also prevent you from submitting? (...) I don't buy that analogy. It's not your (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I am not so keen on it, it sort of smacks of potential discrimination against entries that choose not to do so. If we are going for a level playing field let's get completely level. (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | (...) But not allowing it discriminates against larger or more detailed entries. Take a look at the December models. There's no way to see all the details of two of the models without the LDR file. You're just leveling the field in your favor (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Miguel Agullo
|
| | | | (...) It would seem like you are defending here your right to sell your models *over* the rights of others to share theirs. Granted, this only applies to a very specific instance (MOTM contest), not the community as a whole. But I still can't agree (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I hope not. It's certainly not my overt intent! I think sharing's great, if you want to share. I just don't want to see authors put in a position where they are forced to share either to participate at all, or in order to be on an equal (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) How about three contests: SotM, MotM and LDR file of the Month? (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Hey, there's a nifty idea. Further, the FoTM (if structured to encourage explanation of techniques and so forth in the writeup) could end up being awarded to a file that didn't necssarily make a spectacular display but that did demonstrate (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | (...) I could even submit LPub or LSynth source code...... this is getting rather silly. I think it needs to be restricted to DAT/MPD format files. Within that scope I really like the idea. Kevin (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | (...) Don, I thought about this for a while and have decided to retract my positive swing on this. The whole, dat required or not discussion is somewhat moot IMHO. For a given complete physical model there are only so many reasonable ways the model (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I think you really are on to something now... The various instruction creator/authors all have their own styles, although some authors are similar in some areas to some other authors, you still can often tell who did which instructions if (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | | (...) I agree. I also percieve this as a great catalyst for invention of new techniques and styles. (...) Raising the bar is a good thing. (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) I second Lar, this is a great idea, Kevin. I'm excited that the topic of Building Instructions has gained popularity over the last year or so, with the release of LPub, launch of BIPortal, etc. This contest could serve to further promote the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) Ouch! That hurts. Did you bump your head or something? (...) I think you're missing the point. With an LDR file I can move the arms and legs of a Mech to see what it looks like in different poses. I can spin the gears of a robot even if I (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | (...) Actually Don, I agree with all those points and am in favor of authors having the option to post their DAT/LDR/MPD files along with the images. My point is that within the scope of a completed model, having a contest on how the model is (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | (...) I got the point, but I'm not completely convinced. Anyhow, I really only suggested the LDRotM contest because I'm afraid the model sellers might be influential enough to eliminate even the *option* of publishing the LDR files in the MotM (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | (...) irrelevent. (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
