Issue 14 Discussions

TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
April 5, 2010 - 3:29pm
Here's a thread to dissuss articles in issue 14 of the Star Frontiersman
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
My blog - Expanding Frontier
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine
Comments:

TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
April 5, 2010 - 3:31pm
I'll start this one off with an item that can go into the Frontier Feedback section of issue 15:

In the 'Defensive Fire' article (page 2), It's not really clear what Imperial Lord's variation was.  As written, the Rule segment is just restating the standard rules.  Had I not played the game, the Resolving Hits segment would be unclear as to what was different.  So I'll add in my recollection as a clarifier:

The variation was that as a moving ship entered a hex, both the defending player and then the moving player could declare fire.  Once the ship had moved out of the hex it could no longer fire from that hex (or be fired upon).

Thus if a ship was moving through several hexes, as he entered each hex, the defensive player would have the option to declare defensive fire against that ship or not.  If he did, the attack would be resolved and damage applies.  After the defensive player exercised his option or not, the moving player could choose to fire from that location.  If he did, the attack would be resolved and damage applied.  If not, it was time to head into the next hex.  That would end the options for that hex and you'd go to the next one.  If you got to the end of your move, combat could only then be resolved in the last hex.  All previous opportunites had been lost

What this did was add a little more realism to the fight.  With each move, the defender had to decide if he should apply his defensive fire now or wait, not knowing what the moving player would do next.  Will he get closer and I'll have a better shot, is he going to turn and pull away reducing my chance to hit, or is he going to shoot now and I need to preempt him.  Likewise, the moving player had to decide if he should hold off and try to get closer or take his shot now before the defender fires.

Anyway, hope that helps.
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
My blog - Expanding Frontier
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine

Rum Rogue's picture
Rum Rogue
April 5, 2010 - 3:48pm
I want to say thanks to everyone who contributed to this one.  Lots good stuff, again.

Lots of artwort, lots of material.  Nicely done.  I think the SFMan staff should get a round of applause. 
Time flies when your having rum.

Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time.

Georgie's picture
Georgie
April 5, 2010 - 5:14pm
*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.    * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
April 5, 2010 - 6:27pm
I think we should get paid.

Foot in mouth

@Tom,
Might be up to interpretation of the official rules. :-/
I read the Sequence of Play as the non-moving shoots all his weapons at the moving player BEFORE the moving can fire his. In this case defensive fire becomes very powerful - in the SWII game we played we used Imperial's rule and it worked out very well.



TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
April 5, 2010 - 7:44pm
I agree, just the way it was written it wasn't clear to me that what was being presented was much different.  Maybe it was just that I was reading it too quickly.
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
My blog - Expanding Frontier
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine

Ascent's picture
Ascent
April 6, 2010 - 3:08pm

My robot article has been shredded to near crap. I'll discuss it tomorrow. Please, no one claim credit for editing my article, because whoever did it is about to get completely shredded tomorrow. I'm as furious as I've ever been. Not to worry, though, there won't be any cuss words, just a thorough ripping of the person's editing skills. It's going to happen whether the person claims responsibility or not. I suggest no one take responsibility for it, because the person who does is going to look like a complete idiot, whether they're a friend or not. I don't want to know who it is. I only want the person to read and learn a lesson about how editing is done and not done. The person missed the only two spots in the entire article that actually needed minor editing, and then added an error in one of his edits on top of the total savaging of my article. I have never been so insulted in all my life. You might as well paint a swathe of red paint across one of my paintings.

View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

umungus's picture
umungus
April 6, 2010 - 4:46pm
Im sure that your article can be fixed and put back into the Frontiersman.

 No need to be an insulting dramma queen about the whole thing. Like Woot said no one gets paid to do this stuff. They certainly dont get paid to get insulted by you. People make mistakes. I'm sure you have made a few in your time on earth. So, stop trying to be so self righteous and take a chill pill.

At least I got to scare an alien rabbit thingy......


Cosmic_Emu's picture
Cosmic_Emu
April 6, 2010 - 6:01pm
Thank Umungus,

Seems to me that somebody who can put together a nice article like that, butchered by editing or otherwise, might be a bit more selective of his words when responding to an editor. To explode in such a manner really is unprofessional and doesn't invite sympathy or understanding at all, especially from a community of volunteer workers.

There are a few important things, I would ask, however. Does the article, as presented, function on a rules level? What exactly was done to it to make it such a horrible job?

I would say that constructive feedback to the editing would get a lot more accomplished than the dramatic outrage expressed above.

Thanks,

-Eli

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
April 6, 2010 - 7:56pm
Does the drama 'round here ever end? Foot in mouth
You ppl crack me up with all the public post - does no-one have my email or PM? Wink

Bill's article was reviewed by three ppl and we sill missed a typo. :-(
If anyone has 1.) the time and 2.) the passion to read the entire Issue from cover-to-cover before it's published PM me please.

Ascent has the official SFman layout in Word format - so he can edit his own articles. :-)

Your servant and Level eleventy-billion robot,  w00t


Georgie's picture
Georgie
April 6, 2010 - 8:02pm
Personally, I liked the robot articles. I found them informative and enjoyable. The edits are invisible to the reader.

On the other hand, as a contributor, I understand the sense of ownership an author feels. When I read a sentence in my article that I didn't write, I felt a little sting to my pride. So I took a step back and tried to sit in the chair of a typical reader. When I did this, I found it didn't detract from the point of the submission. The main idea still came across, so I ignored the additions. (I also chose to ignore a couple minor errors as well. It's a fan-zine, not Newsweek).

Now we really can't compare my submission to Ascent's in this issue, they're apples and oranges. It is quite possible that Ascent has a legitimate gripe. If that is the case, then it does need to be discussed, but as umungus and cosmic_emu said, let's do it in a professional manner. Ascent, I invite you to calmly, and without personal attacks, list points in your article where you find that the editing changed the idea that you were trying to impart. The community can then weigh in with their view points. And, hopefully, the end result will be some sort of standards or process we can provide to the volunteer editors for an improved Star Frontiersman.
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.    * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi

TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
April 6, 2010 - 8:47pm
And as a side note, all the articles are going online in the Star Frontiersman section of the Star Frontiers Network Wiki so author, editor and readers can fix any errors or typos they find in the online version if they so desire.  Ascent's article is already up and available for editing.

And I'll do the cover to cover read if you want w00t.  If nothing else it would give me a jump on getting the articles on line. Smile That's how I caught the typos so far.
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
My blog - Expanding Frontier
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
April 6, 2010 - 9:00pm

I love the cross-campaign material!

Did anyone catch Jess Carver's article, where he mentions Killian Britmoll...the same Britmoll from my Dominion game report? That character stems from the game he's hosting, one he took over from Dick Gozeinya (R.I.P. , Goze originally coined the character when that game started. Pretty cool that Jess & I are keeping his memory alive through his creation).

I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
April 7, 2010 - 11:52am
@Shadow - I love that too! :-)

@Tom - one other person wants to help also, I'll email you both the final draft 1 week before publication.

@Ascent - I think it's best to handle this in private, you will find that public bashing gets you a one-way-ticket to the bit bucket. Last issue I totally forgot someones article, I revised the entire issue and apologized, this person PM'd me in private.

@Rum Rogue (He Who Must Not Be Called adam) and Georgie - thx for the clap but if you bang a metal spoon on a metal pot the sound will tickle my circuits. ;-)

@umungus - I don't make mistakes as a robot, garbage in - garbage out. Foot in mouth

@Georgie - the editor reserve the right to edit all articles. That's not to say were "better" or we know the author's intentions - sometimes I take the time to send a copy to the author if it's edited dramatically. For instance (my fav part of this Issue) Ryan Baker submitted the Star Rover picture and I added all the text and stats (with the exception of Ryan's comment at the end) and sent it to him for review. Can I do this for each and every article? Unfortunately the robotpower needed for that is too much for this publication.

I'd like to THANK all our artists, submitters and editors for another great issue. I'm already working on #15 and have about 6 articles that are "Waiting for final". (These are articles that I get for review that the author says their not done with yet.)


Maybe I should put together an SFman email-list that we can all subscribe. This list will be for requests (from me to you), updates on the upcoming issue and publishing a list of articles for the upcoming issue. This is a way to stay informed and keep the issue on track.

Thoughts?






Ascent's picture
Ascent
April 7, 2010 - 3:26pm

Sorry, w00t and anyone that objects, but when you see what all was done, then you will understand the extent to which my article was edited. Thank you very much for the compliments, but believe me, the article would have been far better.

Georgie, I belive it was I who edited the line in your article, and that was, as you said, a single line, and my mystake in the interpretation showed the very reason for the need for the edit, though I should have cleared it by you before posting it, and the lesson was learned and won't happen again. This situation, however, is far more severe, as you will see below.

Since the person is not named, and indeed I do not know who it is, they're going to get a public lashing. If they take offense, they take offense in private, unless they themselves are unwise enough to out themselves. I do not know who it is and do not care. The only thing a private conversation would accomplish is me finding out who it is (which I don't want to know) and possibly pulling my punches, which will do no good for teaching anyone a lesson, and the lesson could easily be repeated by someone else on some other occasion. Whoever it was is between Larry and that person. Perhaps Larry, too, may be me more careful in regard to that person's edits in the future.


That said, I reiterate, I do not want to know who it was, and it would be unwise for them to declare themselves the editor of the piece after what I have to post. This is a public rebuke to that person alone, but a lesson to the entire community about how to and how not to edit an article. Everyone can benefit from seeing the effect their edits can have on the author and should impart a need for empathy for the author and caution when editing their work.

If anyone objects to my rant, they do not need to read my rant. But for whoever edited my article, and whoever would like to learn what is distained in article editing, this is for you.

Rant begins here:
My Adventure Bots, part 2 article was mercilessly and hi-handily butchered! Whoever did this, it was done by no one of any experience with or understanding of editing whatsoever. It’s like surgery performed by Freddy Krueger. These edits were offensive and insulting, and please no one insult my intelligence by claiming them to be an “accident” or due to “hasty editing” (that would actually mean it was under-edited, not over-edited). Editing is about correcting an article, not judging the material according to your own untrained standards. And don’t claim editor’s prerogative, because not even the most entitled professional editors are so uncouth.

 

Here is the butchery of my article that took place:

 

1. Deleted 72 words from the “Programmed Personalities” heading opening paragraph! Words that included RULES on how to handle the programmed personalities!

 

2. Deleted 75 words from the “Emotion” heading opening paragraph! Words that included EXPLANATION and RULES on how to handle emotions!

 

3. Rearranged subjects under the “Independent Robot Actions” subheading. My use of alphabetical order was my own aesthetic choice. AN EDITOR DOES NOT EDIT AESTHETIC CHOICES. It’s called an “aesthetic choice” because it is a choice and is according to a personal preference. The way it was rearranged was an aesthetic choice. The editor’s aesthetic choice SHOULD NEVER override the author’s. Write your own article if aesthetics are that important to you. This is not a step-by-step article, so organizing listed subjects in some semblance of order of mildly related subject matter is a waste of time.

 

4. Deleted 40 words from the “Expressing Your Robot” subheading opening paragraph! Words that EXPLAINED the 3 (and only 3) subjects listed beneath it!

 

5. Again, rearranged the subjects under the “Expressing Your Robot” subheading.

 

6. Deleted the “Creative Roleplaying” SUBHEADING and the 23 words of the opening paragraph that EXPLAINED the 5 (and only 5) subjects listed beneath it!

 

7. Deleted the “Natural Robot Traits” SUBHEADING and the 39 words of the opening paragraph that EXPLAINED the 5 (and only 5) subjects listed beneath it!

 

8. Once again, reorganized my aesthetic choice below the “Roleplaying Opportunities” subheading!

 

That’s a total of 249 words completely erased from the article! And not one legitimate editing decision among those 8 MAJOR edits!

 

Personally, I find this style of editing very disturbing. I put those subheadings in there for very specific purposes. I don’t care to contribute if my leaders are going to be removed, or titles removed from my tables or any other such over-zealous editing.

 

It may be felt that the subjects under those subheadings are closely related, and so they are, that’s why they appear one after the other under a single overarching heading (“Robot Roleplaying”); but they are unrelated in other ways: “Expressing Your Robot” is meant to show exactly what the player their self is capable of doing to show their robot’s expressions. “Creative Roleplaying” involved ways in which you can inject your robot into the adventure. “Natural Robot Traits” was regarding the behaviors of robots in everyday interactions. As it stands, without those headers or their introductory paragraphs, the material all runs on and on and provides no understanding as to the purpose of their inclusion. I’m surprised you left in the “Expressing Your Robot” subheading at all, or the “Roleplaying Opportunities” subheading and opening paragraph.

 

This is the first time I’ve ever been so truly riled and disturbed by an edit. And here I thought I was upset when the titles of my tables were left out of my Starflight article in issue #5. What happened in my article went beyond the scope of an editor’s duties in my experience. For crying out loud, you took out rules text! If you needed more room, then shrink the text, leave out an image, whatever, but don’t dump sections of text necessary to introduce or explain material or the rules material itself.

 

Are my articles going to be so butchered in the future? I hope not. Better to have my article reject on the whole, or not to write an article in the first place, than for people not to finish reading one because they’re too bewildered to make heads or tails of it, or too bored from the monotony. Or maybe I should just throw a bunch of disparate information together and let the editor sort it out. There isn’t an emoticon on this site to express how I feel, but there are plenty of words that I left out that could more appropriately express it.

 

Editors edit and butchers butch. Should a dog “caw” or a cat go “moo”? Am I supposed to be thankful for your butchering my article? Should a person with five hair lengths and two bald spots thank their barber? Would you want someone butchering YOUR article so readily? Of course you wouldn’t! So don’t do it to someone else! This was HACK editing from top to bottom! Why don’t you draw chicken scratches on my art as well and declare it improved, or better yet, cut holes in it. When someone hands you an article and says “here, edit this”, they don’t mean to change whatever you can. They mean, if there’s anything grammatically wrong with this, correct it. Editing is a skill utilized in censorship, not the other way around.

 

The only spelling correction that was needed in the entire article that seemed to be missed is that the “is” on the last line of the left column on page 4 should be “its”. It seems to me that editing is supposed to correct text, not remove it or unnecessarily change it, but my text “variants on the Warbot Laws,” was changed to the nonsensical: “variants Warbot Root Laws.” Perhaps it was meant to be changed to “variant Warbot Root Laws.” Better to have left it alone than add an error. That’s the problem to being so free with the rewrites, is injecting one’s own errors. Now granted, my text “sentient beings of its faction” under Warbot law 2 should have been simply “sentient beings”; thus it would have been the appropriate place to remove text to make it make more sense, but you might still want to ask about such things for clarification before just vaporizing text willy-nilly.

 

Out of all the atrocious edits made to my article, only two I can recognize as somewhat legitimate, if optional, edits regarding my repetitious stating of “fourth and fifth” level robots, but that was a point I was trying to drive home, so to me, they were needless edits.

 

Here’s your crash course in editing:

 

1. Correct grammar.

2. Correct spelling errors.

3. Reword hard to understand statements to improve readability. (That is, make sure you can understand each sentence, paragraph, heading, and the article as a whole. It’s usually best to ask for clarification from the author if something is unclear [see my statement to Georgie above].)

4. Reduce unnecessary redundancy. This usually applies to two paragraphs in a row that are saying the same thing or beating a dead horse. (This part is tricky, though, as often an author wants main points repeated 3, count them, 3 times. So remember, main points are sometimes repeated 3 times.).

 

Here’s what not to do as an editor:

 

1. Delete whole paragraphs (unless unnecessarily redundant [see point 4 above])

2. Rearrange aesthetic ordering.

3. Reword phrases that are already easily understood. (Perfectionism only leads to more flaws or bottlenecking.)

4. Fail to actually correct grammar or spelling.

5. Create more grammar and/or spelling errors.

6. Burn your writer.

 

Everyone should check their articles. I hope no one else has had their articles shredded so badly.

View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

Georgie's picture
Georgie
April 7, 2010 - 5:34pm
Zzzzzz.... *snort* huh? wha? ... Is the useless flaming over? Good.

First, let me point out that I said that the additions to my article didn't change the point. There was no mistake in the interpretation. I was simply using my experience as a counter point to your own. Once I got over the initial selfish sting, I realized that A) the editor intended no harm and B) inflicted no harm.

Now, as to the valuable parts of the rant, i.e. the intial items numbered 1-8, I must disagree with the opinion in number 3. "AN EDITOR DOES NOT EDIT AESTHETIC CHOICES". Yes they can and do. The editor sits as a proxy to the reader. If the editor feels that the author's aesthetic choices conflict with the reader's consumption of the information, the editor has every right to rearrange it. The only time an author's aesthetic takes presedence is in poetry, where it can convey additional meaning. Your alphabetic arrangement choice may have been designed to show a robot's programmatic limitations (i.e. it does A before B before C, etc.). The editor probably would not notice something so subtle.

The other items cannot be judged without comparing them to the original. I invite you to post the original on Tom's wiki and let us know when it's there. Then we can get on with something constructive.
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.    * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi

Ascent's picture
Ascent
April 7, 2010 - 5:45pm
I corrected the subheadings problem on the wiki, put them back in alphabetical order (in alpha order for the purpose of quick reference) and will add the missing material later.
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

Cosmic_Emu's picture
Cosmic_Emu
April 7, 2010 - 8:28pm

Ascent,


As much as I understand your ire at the editting that was done to your work and agree that it seems there was much that was cut out that needn't have been, I see no benefit or good reason to call the editor out in public. It's unprofessional and simply rude. Expressing your concerns is one thing, but throwing your voice around in a tantrum is going a bit far.

I've only been active here for a short time and this really is a bit distressing to see.

Thanks,

-Eli


jedion357's picture
jedion357
April 7, 2010 - 9:03pm
Cosmic_Emu wrote:

Ascent,


As much as I understand your ire at the editting that was done to your work and agree that it seems there was much that was cut out that needn't have been, I see no benefit or good reason to call the editor out in public. It's unprofessional and simply rude. Expressing your concerns is one thing, but throwing your voice around in a tantrum is going a bit far.

I've only been active here for a short time and this really is a bit distressing to see.

Thanks,

-Eli



Honestly, its a matter of when not if, when these sorts of distressing unpleasentness happen in an online community such as this. Usually the community will "police" itself with the majority siding with one side or another. What we dont have is a heavy handed moderator who sucks the wind out of any open discussion, which is good because that type drives away members in the name of "protecting the integrity of the site" which means that its his sand box and he runs the show. (thank god thats not this site).

Personally I agree with 70% of the rant as having some sort of vallid point but thought the whole post could have used some heavy editing and pruning, IMO Sealed

Without a doubt its best to praise in public and reprimand in private.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Imperial Lord's picture
Imperial Lord
April 7, 2010 - 9:25pm

I'm pretty much with jedion and Cosmic_Emu.


Leave the criticisms in private. 

That being said, Ascent raises valid points - all of them, pretty much.  We all need to make sure we help Larry as much as we can, and Larry, for his part, needs to ASK for help and we can get all of these problems corrected.

This stuff is mechanical.  These are fundamentally basic problems of editing and typos, etc.  They are there, and we need to correct them - I think and hope that that is Ascent's point.  If that is the case, then we all need to pitch in and edit part of the zine before release.

Another thing - why is the zine still so long?  Had we not established the idea of about 30-40 pages or less?  Building a reserve of material to keep on schedule? 


Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
April 8, 2010 - 9:37am
In my defense the article in the webzine is word for word the article received, (with the exception of adding the robot images and the placement of the Dr. A quote).  Ascent sent me several iterations of the article as he was revamping it and it appears I used the wrong iteration. Several of you send me revamped articles, "Use this one.", "I edited the x portion, use this.", "Delete the other email and use this one.", it's inevitable that somewhere along the line I would screw up. Too bad it was with such and outspoken person. :-(


My goal is to provided a well rounded webzine. I feel that I do the a good job without jeopardizing my career, family, or friendships. However the problem with an inconsistent schedule is tied to content and artwork. Like you, others have given identical critique to Bill and I before and are operating under the following assumptions that simply aren't true;

1) We have consistent free time to devote to a regular schedule
Remember- we have jobs and families and friends and like others like to play games sometimes too... We don't get paid for this thing, nobody signed a contract, we don't take money nor give money from anyone and never promised anything (Renege on the publication schedule I posted last year)

2) We have enough varied content to comprise a quality issue within the consistent publication time frame
I personally refuse to publish an issue that consists only of one piece of gear and three short stories, just because that's what's ready at the time.

3) We have all the art we need
We don't.  Part of what makes our publication be of quality is the artwork, which often takes an erratic amount of time to  get.  If we have no art, would the community still want the webzine if it had a plain white cover with no art?  Or an entire issue with a single drawing?

4) We have a dedicated staff
We don't. We have people willing to help when asked as they have the time. In the end it falls on one person to finish the job. err, one robot. ;-)

That's the problem with a consistent schedule; it only works when there is more than one person with devotion/passion working on it, a steady supply of content/art and finally a decent amount of talent for the layout.

[Insert Name Here] Imagine splitting your SF time into sections; 80% webzine, 10% online gaming and 10% maintaining/keeping up with sf.us. Are you will to do that? How many ideas/articles of my own never make it into the webzine because I'm serving everyone else?


CHANGES TO THE WEBZINE

Continuous improvement measures;

1.) Ascent and Sam will be helping place articles in the official Word layout. I reserve the right to edit all content to fit with the overall theme of the webzine. Yes this will save me some time, no it will not effect the publication date.

2.) We have two volunteers to read the entire issue from cover-to-cover 1 week before publication. Awesome!

3.) I'm willing to re-open sfman.com if we have a dedicated staff to cover the following areas (If we don't have a dedicated staff I'm doing the work so it's not worth having the extra time it would take to updates sfman.com, you understand?)
  1. Editor (That's me - kinda a project lead for each issue to make sure all these areas are covered, maintain the sfman email list (work in progress))
  2. Reviewer (Review and comment on articles and sometimes refer to previous articles or Remastered material where applicable)
  3. Layout Editor (Help with layout, requires Word)
  4. Art Editor (Someone to assign art to our artist (CJ, Shell, Ryan) and pwan the Internet for artwork we can use with credits)
  5. Announcer (Announce the release of an issue, ask for certain types of articles while we work on the current Issue - not sure if this will curb creativeness if someone was "assigned" a topic but we could ask if someone has "X" type of article.)
  6. Community Interface (A person that would contact members of the community and ask for a article to expand on something received or to craft something based on an idea presented on the Internet)

You servant, r0b0w00t
-- giving the community a WhatFor!

umungus's picture
umungus
April 8, 2010 - 11:38am
Dang there is still discussion about this...
Ascent,
Just get it edited and put back in the issue and get over it.
If you try to bash anyone on these forums again I'm outa here.

At least I got to scare an alien rabbit thingy......


Sam's picture
Sam
April 8, 2010 - 12:20pm

I just wanted to say good job on the magazine everyone. I'm glad to see the writing and the efforts of the team to bring it all together. We've got this magazine going well -- think of Action Check, that was a good magazine that only lasted 5 issues, unfortunately. Its a shame to see good publications fall for whatever reason.

Lets just enjoy the success so far and think of worlds to conquer, er, I mean explore. Yes, that's it.

***********

"Isn't rape in broad daylight a misdomeanor in this town?!?"

"Now, now... there's no need for hysterics."


AZ_GAMER's picture
AZ_GAMER
April 8, 2010 - 4:29pm
Hello, artwork.......um, er, yea whats that? Oh yea I do that dont i. Hey just tell me what you need, be specific, and i will make it. Hand drawn will take time, so if you need it fast i can do it digitally.

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
April 8, 2010 - 5:37pm
w00t wrote:
Ascent sent me several iterations of the article as he was revamping it and it appears I used the wrong iteration. Several of you send me revamped articles, "Use this one.", "I edited the x portion, use this.", "Delete the other email and use this one.", it's inevitable that somewhere along the line I would screw up.


I can firmly back this part up. I've sent in several revisions with similar opening remarks (Nix the last one, Use this one, etc), so I can certainly see the feasibility on where a submitted revision might get missed.
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Ascent's picture
Ascent
April 9, 2010 - 2:14pm
I did send two revisions after that, both of which received replies, thus indicating that they were received, but apparently not recorded. I didn't even remember the article ever being in that condition. Only two things in this world truly tick me off: 1) harassers (such as you-know-who), and 2) my creations not appearing in the condition I expect them to. I'm a deva about my creations, and I'm not ashamed of it. Kick me, beat me, make me bleed, take my wife, my car, and my cat; it's all been done to me, and I can handle it all with grace, but don't display my creations in any other condition than what I send to be displayed (typical minor edits withstanding).

I put the corrected article on the Wiki. You can find it under "Adventure Bots! Part 2". I hope this has not ruined the information for anyone who appreciated it or who had yet to read it.

This part of the discussion is over.
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

Ascent's picture
Ascent
April 9, 2010 - 2:35pm
umungus wrote:
Dang there is still discussion about this...
Ascent,
Just get it edited and put back in the issue and get over it.
If you try to bash anyone on these forums again I'm outa here.

We're not robots, umungus. We all do the drama queen from time to time, even you, your post not withstanding. I didn't call anyone specific out because I wasn't looking to embarass anyone but myself, or to start a fight. I had a rant that I felt needed to be said. You can't keep people from being human or expressing their nature. It's impossible. If you can't handle human nature, then the internet is the last place someone with such objections should be dwelling. A site with no COC in place, and no moderation, can't expect everyone, or anyone, to behave. You have complained about my colorful language, I stopped using colorful language, but I'm not going to stop speaking my mind. If you can't appreciate my willingness to put my cards on the table, then I'm sorry, but this is who I am. I'm past childhood rearing by 20 years, so any hope of my changing what you perceive to be a flaw in my personality is beyond hope. If you leave, it's not my fault, as I'm not responsible for the sensitivity of others. I haven't harassed you or anyone else in any way and I'm not going to, because I only harass those who harass. If you have a personal problem with my being outspoken, I would suggest either get used to it, or take any action you think appropriate. It seems to me to be contradictory to be so outspoken about things and then complain at someone else's outspokenness.
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

Ascent's picture
Ascent
April 9, 2010 - 2:49pm
cosmic_emu: I didn't call anyone out, as I repeatedly stated that I didn't know who and didn't want to know who, and I stated that it was for everyone's benefit, not just for the one I thought edited my article. The magazine was edited by multiple people, not just Larry, so I was capitalizing on that to maintain distance neutral treatment (friend or not) from whoever it might have been.

Imperial Lord wrote:

I'm pretty much with jedion and Cosmic_Emu.


Leave the criticisms in private. 

That being said, Ascent raises valid points - all of them, pretty much.  We all need to make sure we help Larry as much as we can, and Larry, for his part, needs to ASK for help and we can get all of these problems corrected.

This stuff is mechanical.  These are fundamentally basic problems of editing and typos, etc.  They are there, and we need to correct them - I think and hope that that is Ascent's point.  If that is the case, then we all need to pitch in and edit part of the zine before release.

Another thing - why is the zine still so long?  Had we not established the idea of about 30-40 pages or less?  Building a reserve of material to keep on schedule? 


You understood my point correctly, EL. It was not meant to be personal, though I felt very personally affected.

As for page count, actually, it was decided that it would be 50 pages.
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

jedion357's picture
jedion357
April 9, 2010 - 8:15pm
Hey just wanted to Insert a plug into the conversation: I have a Hat that I'm giving away as a Grand Prise In issue 14.

Its a Volturnus Survey Expedition II uniform hat (see pics in issue 14) and its yours for the taking....

all you have to do is enter a little contest  and win.

Details are in issue 14 and here:

http://starfrontiers.us/node/4078
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

elpotof's picture
elpotof
April 10, 2010 - 2:55am
On another issue, could we discuss the following article: Cyberbionics.

These are just personnal comments; please take them in the manner that i present them.

Cyberbionics are on a whole, very powerful with not enough penalties to offset the advantages. The two initial disadvantages, cost and risk during surgery, are one-off risk factors. In reality, you have maintenance issues - on a bi-annual basis or sooner, implant rejection, and other factors (e.g. - would an electric jolt set off an implant?).
 In essence, once an bionic has been implanted, it requires periodic checks throughout its lifespan. This brings onto other issues, such as upgrades, obsoletence issues and compatibility issues with other implants - all these factors will make a character think very closly before obtaining an implant.

I've looked at a few bioincs through the article and commented on these below:-

Foot Anchors - not sure how this works in practise - I hope the wearer isn't wearing armour or he'll shred it! Need a good descriptor to really detail its use.

Gill Implants - To get anywhere near the amount of oxygen for a human body, a good portion of the gill system must be external; I feel that the text points to an internal system.

Knuckleplating - From reading the text, i deduce this is an internal bionic. If this is internal, there IS a risk to damaging your hand. The plating may be superstrong - normal flesh and blood isn't; it'll take damage as normal. No punching through walls!

Lungfilter Implant - I assume that CO2 is filtered out during extended periods of holding breath.

Synth hair - I have an issue with the hair length - where is it stored when the user is bald? In the cranial cavity? I would keep the rest of the description, bu leave the hair length option out; treat it like normal hair in this respect. Or, keep it at a fixed length - there are disadvantages in bionics after all.

Unisolve  spray implant - I don't think many people would go through this procedure on the slim chance of being caught out by a tangler - this sounds like a unique one-off bionic for specialised situations - i.e. an assasin who cannot afford to be taken alive.

Again, this is my take on what I've read. I realise this is work in progress - but comments never hurt!

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
April 10, 2010 - 7:58pm
elpotof wrote:
On another issue, could we discuss the following article: Cyberbionics.

These are just personnal comments; please take them in the manner that i present them.
Hi!  Thanks for the feedback.  I love feedback!
elpotof wrote:
Cyberbionics are on a whole, very powerful with not enough penalties to offset the advantages. The two initial disadvantages, cost and risk during surgery, are one-off risk factors. In reality, you have maintenance issues - on a bi-annual basis or sooner, implant rejection, and other factors (e.g. - would an electric jolt set off an implant?).
 In essence, once an bionic has been implanted, it requires periodic checks throughout its lifespan. This brings onto other issues, such as upgrades, obsoletence issues and compatibility issues with other implants - all these factors will make a character think very closly before obtaining an implant.
Yes, the cybernetics and bionics are quite powerful... but read them carefullly.  They are, as a whole, no more powerful than equipment priced ten times less.  Only a few items are unique to this list really.  The article specifically arranges the implants into categories - in case you believe the greater implants are too powerful - just disallow them from the game.  Star Frontiers is a game where equipment is by far the scaling factor for a character's ability.  For instance, if you had a character with 100XP worth of development but had only basic equipment on-hand, yet I had a fresh new character equipped with any gear I wished -- I'd totally destroy ya.  Therefore, since these items are powerful they are also priced powerfully... therefore, they're mostly for characters wanting something cool to spend those creds on when they're really up there in development.  I disagree that an electric shock should damage the gear... when your character is hit with an electrostunner, you don't have to worry that his gear gets damaged.  Cybernetics is just a type of gear, that's all.  It's just gear you can't drop.... and ya pay a heavy price for that.

Although the article didn't include the details, an excellent follow-up article might be one which details maintenance costs and damage tables.  I just don't think you need all that to have a fun game.  Yes, if you have the credits, you can buy a blast-hand implant.  But who would do that when a blaster is so cheap in comparison?  I know: a character who has a nifty character concept.  In my games, I like players who have a solid character concept.

elpotof wrote:
I've looked at a few bioincs through the article and commented on these below:-

Foot Anchors - not sure how this works in practise - I hope the wearer isn't wearing armour or he'll shred it! Need a good descriptor to really detail its use.
I agree.  Anyone with foot anchors would shred his boots upon use.  I'd recommend allowing the character the assumption that his boots include self-sealing anchor slot... after all, it's his concept... if he wants the foot anchors :-)
elpotof wrote:
Gill Implants - To get anywhere near the amount of oxygen for a human body, a good portion of the gill system must be external; I feel that the text points to an internal system.
What math are you using to validate the claim that the fictional futuristic Frontier can't have implants that are completely internal and can convert sufficient oxygen? :-) 

elpotof wrote:
Knuckleplating - From reading the text, i deduce this is an internal bionic. If this is internal, there IS a risk to damaging your hand. The plating may be superstrong - normal flesh and blood isn't; it'll take damage as normal. No punching through walls!
Let's assume the implant provides external and internal support/structure necessary to allow them to function as described...  seems like a knuckle implant designed to allow powerful punches should probably be effective at allowing powerful punches.

elpotof wrote:
Lungfilter Implant - I assume that CO2 is filtered out during extended periods of holding breath.
Sure.  Sounds good to me.  I'm often more focused on the fiction than the science in my science fiction... so I may omit things at times that more science-focused individuals think must be described.  Sorry if that is a problem... please assume any scientific rationale for any of these implants you wish if I didn't get specific.

elpotof wrote:
Synth hair - I have an issue with the hair length - where is it stored when the user is bald? In the cranial cavity? I would keep the rest of the description, bu leave the hair length option out; treat it like normal hair in this respect. Or, keep it at a fixed length - there are disadvantages in bionics after all.
Okay - go ahead and make it fixed-length in your campaigns.  In mine, I assume the implant is able to weave the hair out of nutrients in the body, creating synthetic calcified strands of any length the user wishes.  It's just cosmetic - it really has very little game effect.  It's so that players like my wife or daughter can have a cool make-over whenever they want.

elpotof wrote:
Unisolve  spray implant - I don't think many people would go through this procedure on the slim chance of being caught out by a tangler - this sounds like a unique one-off bionic for specialised situations - i.e. an assasin who cannot afford to be taken alive.
I don't think people would get many of the implants described... but some might.  Entanglement grenades are nasty.  Every other grenade has some way to nearly immunize yourself from its effects: anti-shock implants, screens, suits, whatever.  But even a highly-developed character can get immobilized with a single botched RS check.  Nasty.  I can see a character who has a psychological-fear of captivity buying such an implant.  Or perhaps a player whose plans have been foiled many times by a good ol' tangler grenade.  In any event, just because the implant exists doesn't mean every person is going to find it useful.  Some of these are quite valid pieces of gear/implant for certain character concepts.  Your comment isn't posed as a question, though... are you suggesting something about it or just commenting on its uselessness?

elpotof wrote:
Again, this is my take on what I've read. I realise this is work in progress - but comments never hurt!
I totally agree, and love the comments!  Keep 'em comin'!
3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack