Posted by Rear Admiral Robert Archer (Engineering Director) in Discussion - Modern Navy Plan Revisions

Posted by Rear Admiral Robert Archer (Engineering Director) in Discussion - Modern Navy Plan Revisions

Posted by Joe P in Discussion - Modern Navy Plan Revisions
Posted by… suppressed (3) by the Post Ghost! 👻
The following discussion is a final check over from previous discussions over the past two terms. This discussion entails the opening paragraph of the MNP only.

[Snip]

Pardon me for being rude and not reading the text, but how exactly do you get away with calling this a “final review” when it’s something nobody has talked about for two terms?

Joe

Because the changes proposed were agreed upon after several others in those two terms, so this is a final review of this section (which is very minor if you check the log, the other sections need more review but this least then lets us check this part off)

Robert Archer Edir

Well, excuse me for being a dick here, but your assertion that “everybody agrees to it already” is the very thing I’m wondering about. Because I participated in these discussions quite a bit and don’t recall agreeing to change an opening paragraph. I mean, I don’t remember much of anything, despite the fact that I was the one who pointed out the problem in the first place.

I mean, the entire original point of this review was to replace the entire notion of classifying ships based upon their size, because that system made it impossible to create ships that were consistent with other canon designs. I can’t say whether or not the opening paragraph is good or not without knowing how you actually intend to fix it. It seems like you’re keeping it exactly the same, so to me it seems like we’re going to have exactly the same problems absent any other information about what it is you intend to do here.

Joe

First off joe no i dont think you’re being a dick. Secondly the everybody agrees is not a literal thing it is based on those who did fully participate in the discussions at those times. While you did bring up the major problems early on as you mention regarding not being able to make canon designs, more input was given by others which I as the EDir at those times and in charge of the policies the EDept runs by per its charter agreed with those suggestions, and coupled with a majority (again based on those who gave feed back) out the many weeks and months this was put up which sadly did not get huge amounts of participation but that is a norm here I chose the changes that came about.

Well, it would be great if we could read the summary of these discussions, but nobody has it at the moment. My memory of what happened (including the claim of yours that I wasn’t a participant) isn’t the same as yours.

In this case if you look at the 2 changes for this section it was addressing mistakes of spelling and adding a sentence to adhere to the coming alteration of how specs will be made namely that people can put in tech not normally given the the ranges below this section (covered as I said in part 2) but they had to be approved by the reviewer and fit the designers idea of the submission.

The spelling mistake change is uncontroversial. The idea that we can do stuff out of ranges is, because I remember very much arguing with you about this approach. I believe we went in circles about it. But I don’t remember what the concerns were with what you intended to do at the time, because I can’t read what you said. So, I cannot agree to approve a wording change where the purpose of the new wording is to make legitimate a change that hasn’t been presented for public discussion.

I mean, maybe it would be better to actually skip to the meat of this thing, and do the inconsequential change later if it really is as inconsequential as you say it is? Or maybe just lay out what your plan is here, so we can make sure everyone is broadly on board with that before we stuck in the inevitable nitpicking of text that refers to other text that we’re going to nitpick later.

No where was this opening paragraph meant to solve the issues you outlined above, it was/is simply the first step in that process, the entire effort of updating and revising all three major plans is what will solve the greater issues and others as a whole. To deliver I hope at its end a better experience for the years to come.

Robert Archer EDir

And again to make things clear non of these changes will impact or effect current specs in any shape they’re all grandfathered in it will only effect new designs going forward or those who wish to make their designs conform to these updates it will not be effecting in any form the roleplaying experience that the club has.

Robert Archer EDir

Except that’s complete crap, because the whole reason this got started was because you were trying to “update” the Discovery class. And we already know the long term agenda here is to replace or update the Discovery class, because you don’t like it. And we know that because your assistant is going around asking everybody but me if they’re interested in a new class to replace the Discovery. Which absolutely nobody is.

Joe