Search found 1144 matches
- Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:38 pm
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
But if someone in Shireroth for example spots that according to the formula, they're entitled to 14 pixels, would that really be worth wasting the Council's time for? What amazing piece of development are you going to lose out on for the sake of 14 pixels? This is what I'd be concerned about with a...
- Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:46 pm
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Since the council would assign the values, and reassess the values periodically, it would actually give the council more regular duties - not invalidate it.
- Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:45 pm
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: Resource Map Upgrades
- Replies: 15
- Views: 28051
Re: Resource Map Upgrades
Got a link? I have no visual reference for what you're talking about.pawelabrams wrote:Another type of map that comes to my mind are Polish resource maps;
- Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:00 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
With Spangle gone we already do manual monthly forum post checks. Doing monthly 'expansion eligibility checks' is not only a lot of work, but is pretty much what you're opposing anyway: a numerical system for deciding if you warrant land.
- Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:38 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
How is that a waste of time? If, by the formula, they're eligible for 14 more pixels it's not the council's place to vote yes or no: they already voted by assigning them a score. It's just a matter of notifying the cartographer of the day and making sure it's included in the next update. It's not an...
- Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:32 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: Resource Map Upgrades
- Replies: 15
- Views: 28051
Re: Resource Map Upgrades
I want to start out with how slick that looks. It's pretty sweet, and I have no idea how you do it, which is a compliment as I really do try to increase my graphic arts skills to little avail. It looks like some infographic you'd find on Metapicture. Now, on the old resource map there were rings of ...
- Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:12 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
We don't want people to feel "Ooh, I'm entitled to 128 more pixels according to the formula, I should claim them even though I have no real interest or need in further land." And why not? I support a rating system and some sort of benchmark for size based on it vehemently. Right now the question a ...
- Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:56 pm
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
That link doesn't open for me.pawelabrams wrote:Would something like this be m'kay?
Also, for everyone's edification, the snarkmark is what I was using, because the official copyrighted snarkmark is too big a pain to use in quick conversation.
That color green gives me a headache, I will never use it.
- Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:59 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
At this point I'm really just trolling, as the fact that no one's willing to acknowledge that perhaps they were exaggerating a bit with the whole 'more people want this than don't' claim - and it's getting to be some rediculous justifications (and a big de-railing.) In retrospect, the claim shouldn...
- Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:48 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Right, because majority rules. As long as the majority is the noisy minority. At this point I'm really just trolling, as the fact that no one's willing to acknowledge that perhaps they were exaggerating a bit with the whole 'more people want this than don't' claim - and it's getting to be some redic...
- Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:57 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Hah! More like "If 25% of your house doesn't like the HOA, do you call a real estate agent and moving company??"Yastreb wrote:25% of your house on fire is not an overwhelming majority, but non-negligible? Really?
- Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:31 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I never demanded - or expected - the MCS' immediate capitulation. I was simply bewildered that the letter has not been treated any more seriously than a petition from an individual member. And yet, though serious responses is exactly what you got a flood of, you still feel it prudent to make this c...
- Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:49 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
That's fair, the original draft of that post had a lot more 'yous' than 'theys' but I felt that came off as little too personally attacking. It was a lament against the general opinion and mood of not just that individual post, but the open letter and the general feeling I'm getting off of that enti...
- Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:57 pm
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
So in short, for all the due consideration that has been given, the MCS will do precisely nothing in response to this letter. Man, I thought all the 13 year olds either grew up or moved on. Just because you write a letter, doesn't mean everyone is going to go "By gods - this letter! The error of ou...
- Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:26 am
- Forum: Regulations Discussion
- Topic: An Open Letter to the MCS
- Replies: 126
- Views: 141232
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I have to agree with a number of Craitman's points, but first and foremost I want to disagree that critiquing the 'majority' claim that the letter makes does not make a de-facto attack on the letter as a whole. There's no reason to discount the letter because of that, but it doesn't do much for its ...