 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
