Forum rules was F20-development topic

[wlbragg]

But what gives Thorsten the right to shut down other people's ideas and concepts... ?

Like he said and I agree, he doesn't have that power. He has an opinion, and he has a little bit better than average influence on many people in the project because of his track record. You keep making all these claims that are just not factually true. What gives Josh or anyone the right to expect a bad idea to be popular and not meet resistance?

[Thorsten]

Are you under some impression I have a definitive list ?

Some people here are apparently still under the impression you are able to back up your insinuations by any shred of evidence (I however was not under the impression you'd ever produce anything).

Allows concepts to run, see where they go... give them a time to grow into firm and concrete plans.

Sure - let people work on something for a year, then tell them it has zero chance of being committed and we knew this all along and just didn't inform them, watch them scream 'So why did you just let me waste a year! You could have told me!'

That might be your idea of fun, but it sure isn't mine - I think it's fair to let people know where their idea stands in the overall FG roadmap early on. With that knowledge, they can still decide to pursue it (or not).

But what gives Thorsten the right to shut down other people's ideas and concepts... ?

I read it, reviewed it, consulted others with regards it's uses within our shared vision and it was agreed to not go that route...

(Sounds spookily familiar, doesn't it? You can even look up the discussion with the rest of the developers on the mailing list, I linked it for Josh)

And then, well, I explained in the forum why it's not a good idea (I suppose that was the 'shutting down' part? - a few explanations? Yikes, I must have super-powers...). And you could watch a handful of people agreeing with me that it's not a good idea in the course of the discussion. Even you can't bring yourself to defend the ideas as such (dead horse, remember?)

All you're after here is spreading discontent by making accusations and insinuations which you won't ever back up - and I guess that's why Curt identified you as 'troll'.

[Thorsten]

@Josh:

You all confirm what my friend said "you can't get blood from a turnip"

I'm not sure why you (or anyone) would want to get blood from a turnip in the first place - trying to do so would be (yet another) misunderstanding of what a turnip is.

Anyway - I'm sorry you feel that people not agreeing with every idea you present is the same as a flamewar. But if you feel that it's only a discussion if nobody points out problems with your ideas, then I'm sorry but there's nothing we can do here for you. You'll have to face that ideas may get negative critique in this forum, this is part of what it's for, and this is perfectly in line with the forum rules.

And it most assuredly is not to be taken personally.

So trying to have a discussion in which nobody objects to what you say is like drawing blood from a turnip - it doesn't work.

[daweed]

But what gives Thorsten the right to shut down other people's ideas and concepts... ?

Like he said and I agree, he doesn't have that power.

Even if this is right [ that he doesn't have that "power" ] you seems [ and Thorsten too ] to not understand [ or don't want to understand ] that he is seen as a "reference" here, particulary for new user on this forum, and his word are absorbed as a gospel. Fact is when Thorsten say it's a bad thing, lot's of user here think 'it's a bad thing' even without reading what is discussed in the thread. I saw some idea rejected just because it was not on "way of thinking" , not fairly because it was a bad idea

@Bomber
Now fact is for this thread, i am agree that it's a bad thing if something silently and viciously modify parameters choosen by the user ... 'cause what maintener or developer have decide to apply as parameter will not probably fit to the user ... [ Whatever the cause .... ]

[Thorsten]

Fact is when Thorsten say it's a bad thing, lot's of user here think 'it's a bad thing' even without reading what is discussed in the thread.

First, even if it were true, I don't see how that would keep me from speaking my opinion. I do see it as my responsibility to consider things carefully, speak up only when I actually believe I understand something or have tested it, and to explain my reasoning. But to be silent about something I believe wrong because people might listen to me seems foolish.

Second, you might wonder whether such a hypothetical reputation comes from nothing, from just posting a lot or is perhaps is established by a history of useful insights and having been right a couple of times.

Third, if an idea can be killed at the expense of me saying so, then it's probably not too important to the person who came up with it. The usual state of affairs however is rather that I'm expected to do the actual work, and me saying no means nobody does it - and of course that lack of manpower kills it. Not my objection.

(For the record, I believe quite the opposite of what you claim is true - in my experience people tend to listen to those who tell them what they want to hear, i.e. that everything is great as it stands or that the eye candy they want to see is no problem to implement far more often than the ones who point out flaws and pitfalls. )

[curt]

Third, if an idea can be killed at the expense of me saying so, then it's probably not to important to the person who came up with it. The usual state of affairs is rather that I'm expected to do the actual work, and me saying no means nobody does it - and of course that lack of manpower kills it. Not my objection.

I think this is one of the most true things said in this thread. Ideas are not killed because someone objects or because someone is critical of various aspects of the idea. Ideas die when no one works on them. Thorsten is right when he suggests that often ideas are expressed here by users with the expectation that *someone else* would work on them.

FlightGear itself is an example of a group of developers not accepting the common wisdom at the time and going off and pursuing those ideas anyway. I've always said that by the time we realized the common wisdom was right and no bunch of zero-experience guys should try to write a flight sim, we actually had some parts of it working, so we kept going, and here we are 20 years later. When I started out in my mid-20's as a young pup that didn't know what I didn't know ... I at least knew that a flight simulator would be a life long commitment and I was willing to put in the time and effort to carry it on my shoulders until it matured enough to become like an engine that feeds itself and runs on it's own.

So my advice is that if you think an idea is good, then pursue it and try it out. If you *know* an idea is good, dedicate your life to it!

[Müller]

I will not take any part in this conversation, it does not fit me, but there is this phrase that I really enjoyed reading

So my advice is that if you think an idea is good, then pursue it and try it out. If you *know* an idea is good, dedicate your life to it!

[Bomber]

Even if this is right [ that he doesn't have that "power" ] you seems [ and Thorsten too ] to not understand [ or don't want to understand ] that he is seen as a "reference" here, particulary for new user on this forum, and his word are absorbed as a gospel. Fact is when Thorsten say it's a bad thing, lot's of user here think 'it's a bad thing' even without reading what is discussed in the thread. I saw some idea rejected just because it was not on "way of thinking" , not fairly because it was a bad idea

don't want to understand

@Bomber
Now fact is for this thread, i am agree that it's a bad thing if something silently and viciously modify parameters choosen by the user ... 'cause what maintener or developer have decide to apply as parameter will not probably fit to the user ... [ Whatever the cause .... ]

The thing is I'm not backing one horse or the other in this particular design issue...

Mine and other peoples gripe is that Thorsten makes sweeping statements/decissions that directly effect the development of this project.

In the concept stage issues like you've voiced are brought up and over a period of time a plan is devised to alleviate your concerns.. such as for example.

A) silently

On screen notification can be issued to the user advising them that adjustments to user setting will take place, do you accept YES/NO.

B) Viciously

The definition of this would need to be defined... but could it not reset the setting to the previous state once this plane is deselected.

The point is problems can be designed out, but only if they're allowed to be yet Thorsten's over zealous approach doesn't allow for this unless you're as stubborn as me and we see far too many people who wish to develop leave because it's too much trouble.

"Thorsten wrote
Sure - let people work on something for a year, then tell them it has zero chance of being committed and we knew this all along and just didn't inform them"

"We knew" ?

Whereas instead we destroy any chance of any issues being designed out because most people understand that doing this hobby is hard enough without having to fight people like Thorsten for a year. And at the end of this time running the risk that their work being excluded for his personal petty reasons... or for that matter seeing their work decommitted by him.

I'm not and no one is calling for bad ideas to be included.....

What's being asked of this community is for a 'fair crack of the whip'.... to be able to have discussions, to design and develop WITHOUT it feeling like you're 'kicking sh t up hill', in a constant negative environment whose tone is set from Thorsten motley crew downwards.. with the passive and active support of the owner and moderators.

If a fair crack had been allowed you'd not have seen the FGMEMBERS acrimony we saw last year, there ideas would have been seen, tested evaluated included or not... but no 'we knew better' ruled.

And it's all right for curt to say just get on with it like I did..... well he didn't have the likes of Thorsten and the core crew on his back.

Simon.

[wlbragg]

Even if this is right [ that he doesn't have that "power" ] you seems [ and Thorsten too ] to not understand [ or don't want to understand ] that he is seen as a "reference" here, particulary for new user on this forum, and his word are absorbed as a gospel.

I'm done chasing my tail, but I will comment to this because it is directed partially to me.

Why would a new user in particular, one who knows nothing of Thorsten's record or weight around here, think Thorsten's words were the gospel? I think they might be more likely to argue something thinking they were right while not understanding any of the intricacies of FG or knowing anything about the personalities and knowledge base of seasoned contributors.

Fact is when Thorsten say it's a bad thing, lot's of user here think 'it's a bad thing' even without reading what is discussed in the thread.

Well then those people must respect his skill set and evaluation of such things. I don't see that as an issue, I take the word of people I know and respect all the time.

I saw some idea rejected just because it was not on "way of thinking" , not fairly because it was a bad idea

That is like "hear·say", you need to be specific.

[Thorsten]

The point is problems can be designed out, but only if they're allowed to be yet Thorsten's over zealous approach doesn't allow for this

As usual, you fail to give any bit of evidence why my approach (which included suggesting no less than three alternatives to Josh which are in my view better) 'doesn't allow' for re-design. But who cares what has actually been discussed, since you already know me?

This is pathetic.

On screen notification can be issued to the user advising them that adjustments to user setting will take place, do you accept YES/NO.

That actually was one of them, suggested more than once by different people - guess what - neither Josh nor Ahmad ever wanted to discuss it further.

The thing is I'm not backing one horse or the other in this particular design issue...

No, you're just criticizing me for pointing out a major flaw in an approach - while so far no less than four people besides me in this discussion have stated that they see the same flaw and there's a consensus among the core developers that FG shouldn't work like that. An approach you can't bring yourself to defend because you know it's bad.

So - what action of mine exactly do you think has wronged Josh in any way? Me pointing out what basically everyone else also thinks about the approach? Me trying to provide alternatives to him that do not have the problems? My trying to explain no less than four times what the problems are in detail so that he can adjust his approach?

(Sorry - I forgot - you're not into pesky details of what actually happened, just vague insinuations.)

It was your choice to butt into this knowing only less than half of the background discussion before this thread because you just wanted to grind your axe - and mount the dead horse - now see how you get off it yourself or ride it on looking more foolish with every post, I don't care.

And at the end of this time running the risk that their work being excluded for his personal petty reasons... or for that matter seeing their work decommitted by him.

Just because you base your decisions on your personal dislike for me and blatantly disregard things such as facts and evidence, you shouldn't assume everyone else does.

Sorry, but people who believe their ideas can only ever be rejected and the only reason commits may get reverted is because others personally dislike them have always appeared a bit immature to me.

(For the record, I also have never wholesale reverted someone else's commit - you made that up as well).

in a constant negative environment whose tone is set from Thorsten motley crew downwards..

Says the guy who has so far in this thread invented several bad things which never happened, has a history of personal attacks against other forum members, insinuates a bad reputation of the FG project which he won't elaborate even when asked by someone genuinely curious, has seen his own software project break up over disagreements among the team and advertizes a forum characterized by Nazi comparisons and sexual innuendo directed against FG developers as the epitome of civilized respectful discourse.

I guess we don't have to look very far for who really is the source of negativity in this forum.