Federation Commander

[mjwest]

[Steve Cole]

Random comments.

I think the 360-0 thing is nonsense, but fine, they ARE NOT 360 at range zero (and you're just being silly and constructing an argument you know is nonsense). At least now you have an official answer. I have a delete key ready for any further waste of bandwidth about that.

The way the forum works (PHP software being fairly stupid compared to real software like Discus), it is pretty impractical to come back after Origins and scan back through pages of stuff and reply to it. If you want to discuss these things, pick it up after Origins. Posts during this busy time do not get much attention, and are pretty much ignored and lost.

The reference rule book IS the rule book, no ifs, ands, or buts, no matter what helpful players and patient staffers have tried to explain. It's THE complete rulebook (without ships or scenarios). The ONLY thing "wrong" is that we did not "write thorugh" the rules to improve the literary flow. This was a deliberate decision, not to save time, but to MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT CHANGED by putting the stars and the changes. This IS a MASTER rulebook, but we only use the term MASTER for SFB (it's a branding thing). Master SFB, Reference FC, and F&E Warbook are all what you guys would call "master" rulebooks. We took all the time we needed and wanted to get the rulebook the way it is because that's the BEST way to do it. It is not an "unfinished" or even "sloppy" rulebook. IT'S A MASTER RULEBOOK, done RIGHT, done the way it SHOULD be done.

It is perfect? No, there's never been a perfect set of rules, at least not since the Ten Commandments. (Try getting Milton Bradley to quit changing their minds what Free Parking means.)

Yes, there was a "staff draft" rulebook, and yes, somebody saw it, and yes, people asked for it, but we did a MONTH OF WORK ON IT before it became the published Reference rulebook and if we did another month of work on it we STILL would not "write through" the rules but would STILL leave the stars marking the updates. The rules are NOT THAT LONG and it's not THAT hard to keep the first paragraph in mind when you get down to the second starred paragraph that clarifies what's not clear.

A sixth edition in two or three years might well 'write through' the reference rulebook and THEN add starred paragraphs at the end of THAT with the corrections from Communique from now to then so that people who have used the Rev5 rules can SEE WHAT CHANGED.

Photon table. It's not going to be changed. It does not need to be changed. Stop wasting bandwidth on this non-issue.

Happy; When are you going to START being polite? You've been anything BUT polite from day one. Future IMPOLITE posts WILL be deleted. There will be NO further tolerance of your childish antics. I have 3 year old relatives who know how to behave in public, and you can figure it out as well.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[Steve Cole]

"If it is not a new edition, it should not state that it is such."

It is, which is why it says it is.

"What's your endgame?"

Mike, he's was just acting in a childish irresponsible bombthrower mode, making a mess for his own entertainment. Trying to reason with him is like trying to reason with a spoiled brat. You can't. When he misbehaves, just delete his post and move on with the 99% of customers who know how to behave. He's acted better since Jean taught him how. We'll see if it holds.

"I was just putting this up in case it had been overlooked."

Kind of a bad way to do this, burying it in a topic about another rule. Better to send an email that gets put into the W&P reports file so it doesn't get lost or overlooked, or to post it in the topic where the vudar rules were discussed. (Staffers reported this quite some time ago and it has already been fixed.)
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[storeylf]

[This issue has been dealt with.]

[storeylf]

[This issue has been dealt with.]

[Steve Cole]

People, Jean and I are busy getting a product finished and then going to Origins. As such, anything that comes down on the "irresponsible bombthrower" (e.g., the rulebook is sloppy!) or "personal insult" (Steve Cole was mean to me!) side of things is going to result in that poster being banned from the Forum until the 5th of July when I'm back from the show and have caught up some on the work that stacks up while I'm gone. I cannot keep coming in here every time Mike or Jean calls to say that somebody acted badly. I have work to do. And woe be until him who "takes advantage of us being out of town" as that can result in a 30-day or even a six-month suspension.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[Jean]

Gentlemen, here's the deal.

You shoved at SVC and you called his work shoddy and you darn near said that the company was misleading its customers. You cannot expect SVC or the company officers to take this lightly. There are consequences when you break the unspoken compact that we have which is this Forum will be a friendly and welcoming place.

No, it isn't polite to say to your host in front of all the guests, "Hey, this party is a cruddy party." It's especially rude when you are asked, "What makes it cruddy?" and your response is, "It's bad." It is even more rude to keep repeating the same vague complaints in front of the guests. Doing so socially would earn you the reputation of an oaf and a bore.

If you were polite, you'd get the host, when he isn't swamped with guests and getting food out and making arrangements for the cake to be brought it, and say, "Hey, there's a problem with chicken fingers. They didn't get quite done enough." If you were really trying to be helpful, you might say, "Steve, these balloons are really close to the candles. Do you think they'd be good over there next to the coat rack? Want me to move them for you?"

The posts didn't have any bad language, but they had at best, a thin veneer of politeness covering over the underlying rudeness.

I am utterly and completely disappointed in the actions and posts of some of you. I expect so much more of you than that.

As for acting out at while SVC and I are at Origins, that is an offense that is not taken lightly. You don't get to say, "I didn't know it was bad." If you are in doubt, email me or Mike West and we'll tell you if your post will get you in hot water.

I suggest that you work with Mike constructively in topics that are labeled so that your post is on topic. "Oh no, another big booboo" posts that contribute nothing constructive to the conversation will be deleted.

The answer to the original posted question for this topic has been given; I suggest that this topic is complete.

Jean
WebMom