Discussion for "Guild Of Writers"

The Noble Robot · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:34 am **Posts:** 769

Okay. Ushgarak, first of all, get off your condescending high horse. We're all on the same team here. Please don't turn me into your enemy. Don't call me or my opinions "disturbing," and please don't claim that "little could be worse" than what I propose. I find it insulting and also immature.

Again... we're on the same frickin' team here. Let's not start with the politics and the personal attacks.

Ushgarak wrote:

The vibe so far has very much been that people involved in any apsect of design creation- from concept to creation- are welcome within the Guild to contribute towards that process.

Agreed.

Quote:

Your IC concern is irrelevant.

I don't think so. If someone who does not literally create an age but is helpful (or vital) in designing it, those people deserve full credit for their efforts, but they are not Writers. How am I wrong?

Quote:

No matter what form the Guild takes the IC is not going to map onto the OOC in that respect.

Agreed.

Quote:

Incidentally, starting off your Guild ideas by trying immediately to restrict entry means you are approaching the Guild issue entirely the wrong way.

Well, that is not how I approach it.

Quote:

as there is no way you can spin the statement "Guild membership is restricted to Writers and Editors". Your idea of a class system of 'proper' members and those who are not is equally disturbing.

Well excuse me :roll:

. This isn't elitism, and it isn't about who gets to create ages (everyone should be able to). This is about how to set up the bureaucracy of the Guild. It should always be up to the team who designs the age to determine how credit should be shared for creating it. It should never matter who is "in the Guild," and no one should be barred from helping create an Age in any capacity.

I don't need to spin it, I'm just thinking out loud here. Perhaps what I should have said is "full Guild membership," but parsing my statements word-for-word in an attempt to impeach the actual meaning of my words, while a celebrated online tradition, is obscenely childish.

When I say that no one should be barred form helping out, or from obtaining some kind of official status with the guild, I mean it. That's why I proposed the concept of "Guild Ancillaries."

Quote:

In such team efforts the team should get the credit.

Agreed. Guild membership should never be required to get credit for helping out. That's elitism.

Quote:

Your idea that modellers will normally be able to cover this side is also laughable.

Wow. That's quite an insult. I'd counter by saying that just about *everyone* who is an Uru fan has the capacity to conceptualize a great age.

Quote:

The best Ages will be created by collobarative effort of many talents.

I agree. But perhaps you meant to say "many people." Just remember that sometimes this "collaborative effort of many talents" will come from many people, other times it will come from just 2 or 3, and sometimes it will come from a single person.

Quote:

Little could be worse than to start this process from the position you are taking.

Umm. How about no fan-made ages at all? There are some who hold that position... How about no Guild? Or what about an attitude which restricts contributions to Age building to Guild members only?

To say that "nothing can be worse" than my view on it, when we agree that all people should be able to participate in creating ages, is the height of both melodrama and manufactured conflict. What we are disagreeing on here is semantics and organizational structure.

And now, your virulent attack on me has made be out to be some kind of monster who stands for everything that you don't.

When did I ever say that teamwork was not an option? When did I ever say that people who can't actually create Ages shouldn't be valued or credited? And when did I ever say that *anyone* should be barred from creating ages?

So get of your high horse, and join the conversation. We all have a say in this, and my view is as valid as yours or Tiran's or anyone's. And let me remind you again that we all agree on the most important matters.

Sheesh. Ushgarak, I'm sorry for going off the handle, I don't want to make you my enemy, but I get sick and tired (and at times, furious) when people want enemies to fight, and manufacture drama out of nothing, when we should be working together to make this work. I'm sure you didn't intend to call me evil, and the format of online forums are partly to blame, but you basically took my opinions and turned them into something completely different, to promote your own views.

And to quote Phillip J Fry, I'm literally angry with rage over that kind of nonsense. :roll:

Tayr · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:11 pm **Posts:** 403

The Noble Robot wrote:

\When I say that no one should be barred form helping out, or from obtaining some kind of official status with the guild, I mean it. That's why I proposed the concept of "Guild Ancillaries."\

Sure, but that right there defines one aspect of age creation as being less important than others. Sure, there are bound to be many more idea people than technical people, but why create a hierarchy?

I say give everyone equal status in the guild, regardless of what they do. "Members" and "Ancillaries" implies rank, which detracts from the goal of age creation. If one group turns out to provide a less useful function (which we won't truly know until we get started), people will know it, and the perceived "rank" (importance) of that group will lower. There's no need to impose ranks on the different aspects of design before we even get started.

The Noble Robot · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:34 am **Posts:** 769

That's a good point. Just like how membership shouldn't be required for credit, I think you make a good point along those lines.

But those concerns need to be weighed against practical concerns. In a system where everyone who shows interest is given the same "rank," how do we set up voting memberships? How do we set up a system for submitting ages to Cyan? Who gets to decide the important matters of the Guild? There *needs* to be a hierarchy.

And the people who put in the hard, hard, hard work of building Ages must be given priority in this regard. There are some incredible age builders out there (of which I do not yet deserve to be counted) who yes, do deserve a higher "rank" than those who haven't put in the free time required to learn something as complicated as Blender or Python. There has to be recognition of the incredible effort required to do what Writers will do.

Perhaps I have to be the one to say it, but when it comes to the GoW, actually building ages *is* more important then anything else in the GoW. It just is. Sure, ages won't be nearly as interesting without all these other creative skills (not by a long shot), but ages simply wouldn't exist without the age builders.

And as others have mentioned, the GoW should be a meritocracy, in that the only barrier to entry is demonstration of skill, which must pass some kind of quick approval by a voting membership of some kind. For Guild Ancillaries (my term, it can be called junior member, or whatever), they will have to find a Writer to assist (that won't be hard, I'm sure), but what happens to them when they then join?

Part of it is semantics, yes, but it has real value, because the organization of the guild will involve IC politics and will also make decisions that will have to come from in depth knowledge of both the creative but also especially the technical side of creating ages.

I think people are misunderstanding my stance here. I make no judgment as to the value of various skills, only their relevance to creating Ages. People who have other creative skills can help out and be part of a team, and if we want we can call them "members" of a kind, but those people have even greater potential in other guilds, current and future. that doesn't mean that they're skills are not welcome at the GoW, but no Guild can be all things to all people. And the GoW especially has to be organized efficiently and openly, with as little ambiguity as possible.

I mean, a lot of us have skill and interest in a lot of the Guilds. I used to be a Radio DJ, so I'd love to join the Messenger's guild. And for anyone who has seen my Minkata map, you know I'd find a home at the Cartographers. But honestly, there are others who belong in the organization of those Guilds because they're skills and knowledge are far greater then mine. It doesn't mean I can't help out those Guilds if I want to, but I can't presume to be a *full* member (whatever that comes to mean for each Guild) if I can't demonstrate the central required skill that they are built on.

I think we all want to give "idea people" the same consideration as the "technical people," it's in our nature as a community to be inclusive and give everyone a gold star for showing up (unlike the Guilds of D'ni, I can tell you that). We can't let that impulse die, because it brings us together, but we can't give ourselves over to it either, especially when to the determent of the Guild, either.

I can understand why you might disagree, but I can't understand why this concept of mine is so hard to grasp, or why anyone assumes that I want to exclude anyone (especially since I've clearly outlined my feelings on that).

Someone proposed taking an interest survey to find out how many people are interested in the guild and have the various major and minor skills required to build ages... I think that's a good idea...

Anyone have a idea on how to conduct this survey? Will a poll on this forum suffice?

Ushgarak · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:53 am

Saying I am on a high horse simply because I don't like your ideas is not very mature, TNR.

What you say about the ICness of writing... is no different from what you said before, so you can just re-read my earlier comment on it.

You say your ideas are not elitism, but that's exactly how it is going to look and frankly I think it is whether you realise it or not. And of coourse it matters who is in the Guild! That's just silly. Saying it does not matter who is in the Guild is akin to saying the Guilds do not matter. Guild membership is hardly the be all and end all of the game but it still has purpose and it still matters. Such loose and meaningless statements are not helpful.

Again, your talk of 'full' guild membership or otherwise is again setting up a tier system or class system or elitist system. I have absolutely no need to, as you put it, 'parse your statements'. Your meaning is absolutely clear for everyone to see. Calling me childish when what you state is so obvious I think says a lot about the quality of your argument.

I also find it funny that you have accused me of being New Age and put yourself as the champion of realism, but think that everyine can conceptualise a great Age. You are simply going to find that is not true. A decent concept for an Age is not very easy and... simply NOT everyone is going to be great at thinking them up. That's just life.

"No fan mage Ages at all" would be part of the 'little' that could be worse, obviously, but I don't see how mentioning that helps at all. Weirdly enough, you then try to say that I said 'nothing can be worse;' having just quoted me not saying that at all. And you accuse me of trying to change your meaning? You should think about that.

I did not make a virulent attack on you at all, that's overly emotive langauge. I made very firm disgreements with your stance- sorry if you don't like that, but I feel it needed to be said about such a stance. I am afraid you don't get to dictate what I can or cannot say about your ideas either- I do find one aspect of them disturbing and so I said so, which is absolutely my right. I don't really care much about you throwing out statements about me 'becoming your enemy' either. That sounds rather school playground to me. Your fury is hardly warranted and it looks far more like you are the one looking to create such an enemy. You seem almost desperate for me to have called you evil (the only person who thinks I did that being yourself, of course) so you can feel you are being attacked so. Get angry all you like if you must- it really makes little difference to me. I have absolutely no problem with you at all. Just your ideas given in this thread.

You ask when did you say that teamwork is not an option? Well, I never said you did say that, but your way is NOT conductive to good teamwork. As one of the repliers above said, teamwork is the way forward and inclusivity is the way to get that. Your way is not inclusive- even though you think it is. It really is not.

Sorry, this is not just semantics at all. Your ideas, I feel, are fundamentally the wrong ones for the Guild. We absolutely must not create a multi-tiered structure where some members are 'fuller' members than others because of the skills they give towards the Guild. That's very wrong. The notion of equality is the one we should stick to.

And yes, you have as much right to give your opinion as anyone. But that comes with a price- the possibility that people might not either like or accept it. And that is simply what has happened.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am very much in on the conversation. My opinion is very clear- the originally pitched concept by Tiran is a very good one. Sorry- but I really do not like yours at all. I am perfectly happy to accept that we most likely agree on most things- but that does not change my opposition to this point.

Narym · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:23 am

Hey,

My domain is really Messengers, but I've been perusing all the Guild threads, and thought I'd jump in with my thoughts. I'm not really replying to anyone in particular here, just releasing my brain speak

One comment that I've heard people throw around (not necessarily in this thread, but the community in general) is that sometimes the Ages feel disconnected from the story itself. Exactly how much truth one may find in this statement when applied to Cyan's worlds is irrelevant at this stage, suffice to say that it is obviously important to many explorers for the marriage of worlds and story to be very organic in nature.

Now, a lot of what I'm now going to say will be contingent on how Cyan integrates the GoW and its work with what they have planned, but for these fan made ages to truly fit within their world, they must have some history, some backstory, to make it feel ALIVE. It will likely end up that the vast maority of fan-made Ages will be stand alone affairs, but, depending on how much interaction occurs with Cyan, the guys at Spokane may end up having some Ages play a role in whatever story they have planned. Indeed, they may allow exceptional Ages, with well crafted histories, to actually INFLUENCE the story.

In either case (stand-alone worlds or story-crtitical Ages) I think having some sort of accompanying 'fiction' (for want of a better term) will be exceptionally desirable. For the latter, it is essential, but for the former, it simply makes for an above-par gaming experience. Yes, there's room for Jalak style sandbox Ages, but I think people also want Kemo/Gahreesan type worlds just dripping with back story. And in a world like Uru, there's room for both.

In the still slightly vague world of fan-related content, I think, for the above effect to happen, there needs to be extensive collaboration between writers (in the traditional sense) and coders/modelers/designers. While coders have an insanely tedious, work intensive job (to my mind, at least), and should totally receive due credit for said work, the efforts of the Story-Crafters (TM

) can just as easily make or break an immersive gaming experience.

Again, the impact that story has on fan-made worlds relies heavily on how much Cyan interacts with the GoW, and indeed, how likely they are to include fan Ages in their story. But, in any case, the people who craft the stories can really help to take a world to the next level. Heck, maybe they can even help designers with ideas on what to put in their next project. I think neither segment of the world-designing community should be left out in the cold. There's no need for it to be like that. Especially when what many people seem to be crying out for is a true story driven Age like the Myst worlds of yore.

...

Anyone got change for 5 cents?

Ushgarak · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:27 am

Well, I very much agree of course- all sorts of people have lots to offer to the Guild, and if they can contribute they all deserve full and equal Guild membership.

Tiran · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:27 pm

Jerrima wrote:

Will Cyan even accept ages from us? Or will there be a legal and possible financial problem to this. They would probably require us to sign over our rights to any ages we developed. We definitely need some talks with a representative of theirs. I was thinking maybe if we just developed ideas to start they might accept those easier, general descriptions, puzzle ideas, population ideas . Then their programmers could develop the actual ages. Although if you have the time and talent to design it all, I am envious. I can't believe that eventually they might need outside input.

Cyan always said that they want user created content and ages. I've strong hope that we are going to contribute ages but it may take much longer than some people think. I'm sure that we won't have an age ready for spring 2008. We might get an age into MOUL begin of summer 2008 if all goes well.

Cyan doesn't need our ideas. Cyan has enough ideas to implement for the next years. Their bottleneck in the age development process is the lack of programmers and modelers.

Tiran · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:32 pm

metaigahn wrote:

Greetings!

[...] a long text [...]

I also do Human Resources (among other hats) for my employer. I am willing to help with a GoW application and database IF the rest of you think this is worthwhile, but don't already have someone with resources to do it, or doing it.

Thank you very much for your offer! We need people like you who can organize teams (human resources) and understand a bit of every part of the age creation process. A lot of members are going to be specialists in their area. Specialists are important to get complex stuff done but we also need some people to coordinate and translate between specialists.

AtionSong · **Joined:** Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:06 pm **Posts:** 57

Okay, I have two things I want to bring up really quickly.

The first is less related to the guild, and more related to this discussion. People need to remember that we are not arguing with PEOPLE, we are debating about IDEAS. There really should be no need to personally attack people for their opinions, and, quite frankly, it just distracts from getting things done.

Just because somebody disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are wrong, it does not mean that they are stupid, and it does not mean that there is anything wrong with them. It's important to remember this and to respect other people and their ideas. If we're all going to work together as a guild, we're going to need to learn to accept that we have different ideas of how to run it, and learn how to respectfully find an agreeable option for everyone.

Okay, with that out of the way, onto a guild related discussion. On the subject of whether and to what extent a hierarchy should be used, I think that it's pretty much agreed that there needs to be at least a little hierarchy for any team to succeed. Basically, if we're going to have half a dozen people working together on age creation, there needs to be a superior helping them along.

What I'd like to do is take a step back and look at how ancient D'ni guilds ran. Look at the organizational scheme:

Grand Master
Guild Master
Guild Captain
Guildsman
Cadet
Apprentice

I think that organizing a system loosely based around this could work very well for the modern guild system. Basically, the guildsmen would be the ones actually working on the physical age creation. A guild captain would be someone who would organize one of the proposed sub-guilds (someone organizing the technical end, someone organizing the creative end, etc). The Guild Master would be the elected head of the guild, and do the general organization of members, etc. The Grand Master position I think is basically covered by Reteltee as Guild Advisor.

Looking down, a Cadet would be somebody who participated someway in age creation, but is not actually a guild member. And an apprentice would be sombody who applied to be a guildsman, but wasn't quite...there...yet, to put it nicely.

Does this sound like it could have any merit?

Jairden · **Joined:** Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:52 pm **Posts:** 181

I like it, Ation. That way, a form of "hierarchy" is formed, but based on participation and project oriented, rather than specific duties being lower or higher on the totem pole. And since most people who were involved would be at the level of Guildsman (like in a typical guild in Middle Ages Europe, and, I assume, in D'ni), the hierarchy wouldn't be too strong of an influence. The position of Guild Master also takes care of who would take finished, polished ideas and present them to Cyan (OOC) and/or the DRC (IC).

A few tweaks, if I may?

Grand Master: I think you have this one down pretty well, except maybe in the future have it be an elected position among all the guild masters (as it was in D'ni). Just perhaps....don't worry Reteltee, your job is safe for a very long time. *wink*

Guild Master: As you said, plus what I mentioned above.

Guild Captain: Coordinates multi-person projects, or oversees/advises a certain number of individual projects, and is around to give a boost, either in technical or creative aspects, if needed.

Guildsman: A majority of guild members, doing specific tasks, etc.

Cadet: Well, if we treat this as a typical guild, a Cadet is sort of like a "journeyman." Perhaps people working on their first project would hold this rank, and then advance to Guildsman after that. This would make Cadet a large part of the membership at times, but I think that is acceptable

Apprentice: Someone interested in the Guild of Writers, and taking steps to learn. OOC-ly, could be learning to use the programs, etc, with some instruction from cadets and guildsmen (possibly even a guild captain that focuses on teaching apprentices). IC-ly, would be learning how to "write" and be a productive member of the Guild.

I guess the source of these ideas is varied, from the original post, the idea of college "academic advisors", and my thoughts IC-ly on how a traditional D'ni Guild was run.

Feel free to lambaste my suggestions as you see fit *wink*

Tiran · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:31 pm

We have something quite similar in mind but we like to keep the hierarchy as flat as possible. I like to emphasis that a higher rank doesn't mean that a person is more important. A higher rank comes with greater responsibility and more work. A guild captain or a master is freely willing to spend more time to do boring administrative work like cleanup up the documentation, moderating postings in the forum etc.

I like to repeat an important thing over and over again: The GoW is about helping people to build ages. Positions in the GoW have to be earned by merit and knowledge.

Teedyo · **Posted:** Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:57 pm

This is mostly directed at TNR, I guess. I believe an IC view would promote a vision almost exactly contrary to what you suggest is required to be a member of the Guild of Writers.

It is the Art of Writing; not the Art of 3D Modeling. Taken IC; it is those who would conceive and write the specifications for an age that would warrant acceptance into the guild. The modelers and programmers would simply represent the ethereal unknowns of the cosmos that bring the writings into being. They should be invisible in a purely IC sense.

Suggesting that creative people shouldn't be allowed full membership because they're not doing the actual modeling is just, well, silly.

The Noble Robot · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:34 am **Posts:** 769

AtionSong wrote:

The first is less related to the guild, and more related to this discussion. People need to remember that we are not arguing with PEOPLE, we are debating about IDEAS. There really should be no need to personally attack people for their opinions, and, quite frankly, it just distracts from getting things done.

Just because somebody disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are wrong, it does not mean that they are stupid, and it does not mean that there is anything wrong with them. It's important to remember this and to respect other people and their ideas. If we're all going to work together as a guild, we're going to need to learn to accept that we have different ideas of how to run it, and learn how to respectfully find an agreeable option for everyone.

Thank you. We're all on the same team here. We will have disagreements, sure, but there are a lot of things we can agree to and have already agreed on, and the last thing we should do is refuse to listen to each other or dismiss each other.

(forgive me, all, for dragging this out, skip ahead two paragraphs for some actual contribution to the discussion)

And Ushgarak, I don't know why you still want to be my enemy, but it's not helping, and I'm tried of your black/white attitude. We don't agree on some issues, but you act as though I'm the devil or something. C'mon, can't we be friends?

Ushgarak wrote:

Weirdly enough, you then try to say that I said 'nothing can be worse;' having just quoted me not saying that at all. And you accuse me of trying to change your meaning?

I'm sorry, that was a typo on my part, but the meaning was clear (or is now). You're still parsing words, it is not the right way to discuss this.

AtionSong wrote:

What I'd like to do is take a step back and look at how ancient D'ni guilds ran. Look at the organizational scheme:

Grand Master
Guild Master
Guild Captain
Guildsman
Cadet
Apprentice

<...>

Looking down, a Cadet would be somebody who participated someway in age creation, but is not actually a guild member. And an apprentice would be sombody who applied to be a guildsman, but wasn't quite...there...yet, to put it nicely.

Does this sound like it could have any merit?

This is almost exactly how I would like it to be, however I don't think we need as many levels of membership. I think we can combine Guild Master and Guild Captain into the 5-member council that was proposed earlier, then you have people who build the ages, and everyone else to helps out.

I also don't think that "apprentice" is needed, which stratifies people of the same skill set and puts value judgments on people's efforts, which I fear could lead to hard feelings and bitterness. The trickiest thing for the Guild will be under what circumstances will it reject an age, and what happens to the person\people who created it... and I personally don't have a good answer for that right now.

Jairden wrote:

A few tweaks, if I may?
<...>
Cadet: <...> Perhaps people working on their first project would hold this rank

I like the idea, but I don't think this would work in practice. We need to remove all bureaucratic barriers to guild membership (with a step one, step two, etc.) Anyone who completes an approved age of any kind should be granted membership. I say this because under the arrangement proposed, a person could spend months or a year on a single masterpiece, and then be granted only "Cadet" status. It loses it meaning because projects will be so varied.

Hawkin · **Joined:** Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:50 am **Posts:** 123

[frustration]For the love of all that is good, can we stop with the playground bickering? Just stop. Now. Trust me, I have to deal with these kinds of things way too much in my everyday life with organizations I am a part of, and I am not going to listen to it here. I want this to stop right here, before it escalates. I want to be a part of the GoW, but if petty bickering is going to take place right from the beginning, you can count me out.
TNR, stop being so defensive, because it isn't helping. Ushgarak has never once called you evil, or even implied such. Yes, he disagrees with your ideas, but that doesn't mean he thinks that you yourself are evil. Neither do his ideas have any less merit than yours.
Ushgarak, the same goes for you. Both of you have made comments about the other's maturity, and I have always found in such situations that neither party is being particularly mature.
Just let it go and start over.[/frustration]

Now, for my contribution to the actual discussion:

The Noble Robot wrote:

Perhaps I have to be the one to say it, but when it comes to the GoW, actually building ages *is* more important then anything else in the GoW. It just is. Sure, ages won't be nearly as interesting without all these other creative skills (not by a long shot), but ages simply wouldn't exist without the age builders.

I have to say that I completely disagree with this statement. However, neither do I think that any other part of the as-of-yet-unfounded GoW will be any more important than the technical part. You made my point for me in your statement. Let's go back to my car company analogy, shall we? If a car company didn't have concept designers, it would ultimately fail. Why? Because, despite the fact that they may be very skilled in their own area, technicians and engineers for the most part simply are not as highly skilled in the area of concepts. Sure, they can look at a design and tell you how to put it together, but they likely will not have as easy a time creating a design from scratch themselves. Even if they can, it will be more time consuming for them, and they will get less done in both areas. And, particularly, if they are not skilled in designing, but they try to do the designs themselves anyway, the cars they create probably will not appeal to as much of their market as they could, and so would not sell well. Also, they may miss flaws in their own designs or constructions that another person may catch. However, if they have concept designers, both groups are highly skilled at what they do, both groups can work with the other to remove flaws, and both can work on their own time, multiplying the amount of time spent working on the project as compared to one person. The same thing would apply to a car company that only had concept designers. Neither set-up would work in the end, and either company would fail. Both areas are treated as being just as important as they other, because they are, because one cannot effectively work without the other.
My point being that you said it yourself: Ages built by programmers alone would not be as interesting as those who included creative writers, musicians, 2D artist, etc. Consequently, very few, if any people, would want to play them. If no one wants to play the Ages, what purpose does the GoW have? None.
So, the 3D modelers, programmers, etc. are not more important than any other part of the Guild, and should not be treated as such. If, in the end, the GoW is set up so that they are treated as such, don't expect me to be a member, even if I do learn to use the various tools needed for those jobs. You need everyone, musicians, puzzle designers, 2D artists, creative writers, programmers, and 3D designers; everyone, and they all need to be on equal status as far as their areas of expertise are concerned to get decent work done.

((No, TNR, this is not a personal attack against you. I do not think you are evil. Yes, I whole-heartedly disagree with that part of your statement, but that does not reflect in any way upon your person, only your idea.))

The Noble Robot · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:34 am **Posts:** 769

Hawkin wrote:

Sure, they can look at a design and tell you how to put it together, but they likely will not have as easy a time creating a design from scratch themselves. Even if they can, it will be more time consuming for them, and they will get less done in both areas.

This is simply not true. The people who have gotten involved in creating Ages in Uru did so (I can only assume) to express their artistic voices. In order to do that, they either applied the technical skills they had, or they slaved over a hot computer learning Blender. I think some recognition is deserved for that. I just can't imagine that anyone who has shown interest in learning the skills to build ages is but a lowly "engineer."

But I understand your point about the car company, but what you are talking about is partisipation in creating ages, not Guild organization. I agree with you (who wouldn't?) that the best product is the result of a balanced approach and a combination of talants from any number of separate people. But here's my point: Without designers, we'd have ugly, boring cars. Without engineers, we wouldn't have cars at all.

From a purely objective standpoint, the "engineers" as you call them are more important. Without them, there would be no cars! That's not a value judgment, and I just don't see how anyone can disagree with that.

That doesn't mean that we don't need both kinds of skills. I mean, I am employed as (among other things) a graphic designer, so I do know how annoying it is when people shrug off the intangible artistic qualities that enrich a technical process. I am not doing that. All I am saying is that people who build ages have a better grasp of what it takes to build ages, and thus organize and operate a Guild based on the highly technical process of building ages. Others who are invaluable to the process can be called "junior members" or "Member type 2"s or "Super awesome members" or whatever, but there needs to be a delineation, otherwise the people who do most of the work will be treated as mearly the Guild's labor force.

Take what Teedyo said:

Teedyo wrote:

it is those who would conceive and write the specifications for an age that would warrant acceptance into the guild. The modelers and programmers would simply represent the ethereal unknowns of the cosmos that bring the writings into being. They should be invisible in a purely IC sense.

I mean, I get his point from a IC perspective, but wow... just wow.

Hawkin wrote:

My point being that you said it yourself: Ages built by programmers alone would not be as interesting as those who included creative writers, musicians, 2D artist, etc. Consequently, very few, if any people, would want to play them. If no one wants to play the Ages, what purpose does the GoW have? None.

You seem to be saying that I don't want people who can't build ages to participate. Remember, this is about Guild structure, not about building ages.

Quote:

((No, TNR, this is not a personal attack against you. I do not think you are evil. Yes, I whole-heartedly disagree with that part of your statement, but that does not reflect in any way upon your person, only your idea.))

Okay, I get the sarcasm, ha ha, and I've already said that I can't help myself when it come to this kind of thing. But the difference between your response (which was measured) and Ushgarak's (which was not) is that Ushgarak claimed that (no matter what I said afterwards) that I want age building to be exclusive, and that I don't want to let anyone help unless they can use Blender, and that my way would lead to the total collapse of the Guild, or that having no fan made ages at all would be one of few worse options... I mean, c'mon, that's a little overboard, don't you think? After I clarify what I mean, he still assigns motives to me that I don't want others to pick up on, and prevents people from addressing my actual ideas, or offering their own take or interpretation or modification on them, and it compels me (I know, I know) to go on about this nonsense instead of continuing the discussion. I'm sure he didn't intend it, but that's just not nice.

I mean, there's disagreeing, there's saying I'm wrong, but then there's characterizing my very contribution to the discussion as harmful. This is not uncommon on the Internets, and I'm totally sure that Ushgarak is actually a really nice person (we have the same goals for the Guild, after all), but can't we control ourselves so that when we have a point of disagreement with someone, we don't overreact and characterize that person's stance as the direct opposite of all that is good?

Discussion for "Guild Of Writers"

Who is online