262 replies to this topic

[Grunker]

It happens quite often that people do ignore warning or don't read them.

Which, incidently, makes them 'guilty' and not TeamBG?

[Baronius]

Exactly, it is their fault not TeamBG's. We cannot look after all greenhorns. Mod creation assumes some basic level of intelligence.

[jcompton]

It happens quite often that people do ignore warning or don't read them.

Which, incidently, makes them 'guilty' and not TeamBG?

If you put a pit of deadly vipers in the middle of a busy street with a clearly labeled sign that says "This is a pit of vipers. Do not enter this pit unless you have a specific reason," I guess you've done the minimum to ensure compliance with good housekeeping, but really, maybe you shouldn't have put the pit of vipers there in the first place. And if it's all the same to Baronius who has no time for "greenhorns", I'd really rather people keep their vipers out of the street.

That said, since the administrators of Dot Eee You seem unwilling to admit they're putting us all on, I have to grant that the current disclaimer is probably about as strongly worded as they could reasonably make it while still straight-facedly trying to call themselves "TeamBG," since Ken's vision was if nothing else about being a collector and completist and it would be very Un-TeamBG-Like to disown such things--although it would be more reassuring that they're not just having a laugh.

Intrigued by the "why pick on us so much?" argument, I remembered that until Dot Eee You started up, Clan Dlan was the de facto place for the nostalgic to go get their TeamBG tool fix. For some reason I thought the Dlan TeamBG mirror only had the stuff which more or less worked, but then to my horror I just looked and saw that over 1600 poor souls have downloaded the really-unsuitable-for-any-purpose-whatsoever IDW, and without any sort of visible disclaimer whatsoever. Aaagh. Muy unfortunate.

But let's not be fooled by nostalgia here, people. There's a difference between "respect for a primitive but effective tool" (a stone spear, the BASIC programming language) and "contempt for a primitive and ineffective tool" (a chair with rockets attached to it intended to achieve spaceflight, IDU/IDW.)

- IDU is atrocious. While it is demonstrably possible to create content with it in a limited fashion, it is notoriously unstable, hopelessly limited, and entirely inappropriate for modifying existing DLGs. It's not even a valuable learning tool--as a tree DLG browser it is inferior to InfExp and DLTCEP.
- IDW is inexcusable, because it never worked at all (not even to the degree you could get by with IDU) and should never have been released. Theo had experienced dialogue coders telling him precisely what was wrong with it while in beta (it corrupts action/trigger text, making it wholly unsuitable for any purpose at all) and he released it anyway.

Edited by jcompton, 19 June 2006 - 09:39 AM.

[igi]

Again a note to those who have expressed optimism - thanks :-)
We're well on the way to releasing our first bunch of tools/tutorials, hopefully you'll find something useful in there.

Another note, a pretty imporant one I feel - this isn't just me reviving TBG. Dax and Seif are helping do so as well (and, to be fair, so is everyone who signs up at the forum). And we're not 'hijacking' the name either, both Dax and myself are/were TBG members, and we've also spoken to other TBG members as well, who have all expressed approval.


As the issues of IDU/IDW keeps being raised - do people have any suggestions? I've asked for them before, but people just keep moaning. I'm not in favour of taking them down completely, but how do people feel about a separate "legacy tool" section, that separates the 'unusable' tools from the others? Or a double warning-confirmation screen for those tools? A "PM to get download link" system?
As for IEEP - it's been noted that this has good (easy to use) and bad sides (outdated, out-moded). I'm content to leave this available for general use, as I'm not aware of any horrendous issues with it.

[Baronius]

Baronius who has no time for "greenhorns"

I said that there is no time to look after all greenhorns, and as I said, my point was that it's not TBG's fault that a user downloads the tool despite the warning.

but then to my horror I just looked and saw that over 1600 poor souls have downloaded the really-unsuitable-for-any-purpose-whatsoever IDW

- IDW is inexcusable, because it never worked at all

I know modders who still use this tool sometimes (if I remember correctly, Vlad as well), so if used by more experienced modders and with care, on a specific purpose (as the disclaimer says), they're still usable. I also used Infinity Script Editor and it is still usable if you're a more experienced modder and know its limits. And you seem to forget that proving "how bad" these programs are is not the subject of this topic. We were discussing whether it's correct or not to keep these older tools available. I can only repeat myself: it's correct that the tools are still available with the red warning text.
(On the other hand you're right about the bugs: some of Theo's tools contain several bugs /or rather just "not the best" code/. Theo has never learnt programming in university so he couldn't be aware of every important aspect while coding, but I found most of his tools very useful, some of them are still used by many modders.)

Edited by Baronius, 19 June 2006 - 11:04 AM.

[jcompton]

As the issues of IDU/IDW keeps being raised - do people have any suggestions? I've asked for them before, but people just keep moaning. I'm not in favour of taking them down completely, but how do people feel about a separate "legacy tool" section, that separates the 'unusable' tools from the others? Or a double warning-confirmation screen for those tools?

Depends on your tolerance for brutal, useful honesty versus maintaining an atmosphere of affectionate puffery.

"Legacy" doesn't convey that they don't work and never did.

"Things Which Never Worked And Still Don't" might.

A "PM to get download link" system?

In true TeamBG spirit, how about re-implementing the IEEP alignment test?

[the bigg]

I know modders who still use this tool sometimes (if I remember correctly, Vlad as well), so if used by more experienced modders and with care, on a specific purpose (as the disclaimer says), they're still usable.

So Vlad uses IDW? this explains many mysterious bug reports, all of sudden.

(On the other hand you're right about the bugs: some of Theo's tools contain several bugs /or rather just "not the best" code/. Theo has never learnt programming in university so he couldn't be aware of every important aspect while coding, but I found most of his tools very useful, some of them are still used by many modders.)

You're an idiot or you just act like it? not being a learned-at-university programmer is no excuse for buggy programs. If you can't program, find something else to do, or learn to debug. And calling 'not the best code' what is a known bug (for example, WEIGHT handling) is just pure bullshit. Almost as bad as the 'a feature, not a bug' mantra.

And you can't hold me responsible for any insult this message delivers, because I have never studied English in university, so I can't be aware of possibly offensive parts in this message.

We were discussing whether it's correct or not to keep these older tools available. I can only repeat myself: it's correct that the tools are still available with the red warning text.

This message should be kept with a red warning text, rather than deleted, because, notwithstanding its possible offensive value, it may be useful to some trolls as learning material.

[Baronius]

The PM for link is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If you want to make them available for download, do so, but don't make Baronius and Vlad tickle your balls just for the privilege of downloading tools nobody else wants.

In true TeamBG spirit, how about re-implementing the IEEP alignment test?

(!Baronius seems to be the best description of these lost souls)

You are so ordinary JCompton that I really can't say anything. You decide who the lost souls are and who aren't, you judge others' tools as if you were superior in that topic, you judge TeamBG and Ken yet you know jack of programming compared to people who were contributing there, you talk as if you were the man... yet when you criticize Ken, only envy is speaking from you and nothing else. Man, if you dealt with your new game's development, world would be much happier. Much better way of spending time.

Edited by Baronius, 19 June 2006 - 11:47 AM.

[jcompton]

I'll accept all of your vitriol if it makes you feel better, but I was only responsible for the middle of those three quotes.

[the bigg]

I'll accept all of your vitriol if it makes you feel better, but I was only responsible for the middle of those three quotes.

A byproduct of a IDU bug

[Baronius]

So Vlad uses IDW? this explains many mysterious bug reports, all of sudden.

IF I remember correctly, I'm not sure. This is not the matter of IDW, this is a general question: are some tools still usable under certain circumstances or not. As I said, sometimes they may be needed/useful that is why they're still available.
(By the way, just don't criticize Vlad's work because he is creating something longer and much more creative, unlike most mods nowadays which authors don't undertake making longer projects than a tweak-fix-(half-day-)NPC stuff: popular stuff for little investment. With little imagination.)

You're an idiot or you just act like it? not being a learned-at-university programmer is no excuse for buggy programs. If you can't program, find something else to do, or learn to debug. And calling 'not the best code' what is a known bug (for example, WEIGHT handling) is just pure bullshit. Almost as bad as the 'a feature, not a bug' mantra.

First of all:
Indeed it's no excuse for buggy programs, but a program author obviously strives for fixing bugs. Perhaps he shouldn't have released the tool because of the coder's reports (I'm not familiar with this case), but he did, and as we see, it still has users. It is the modder's responsibility to use a tool.
Furthermore:
You know very little about programming. This is obvious. University lessons are not needed to make a program, indeed. But it is not the same which methods you use when coding, for instance. You have a comparatively long and complex code when you finish a tool. You receive bug reports. Bugs can be caused by lots of tiny things, and finding these in the code is often harder than just using a little "debug", TheBigg. And here comes how the program was coded. You can solve the same problem in many many ways. It is up to the programmers which one he decides to use. And at this point, qualifications count. (I certainly don't say that a good program cannot be written without them, though.) Finding problems and debugging in a well-written program is much easier.
Furthermore, programmers without proper qualifications (and/or with less skills) might not be aware of certain things (such as the phenomenon of memory leak), and might not choose the most advantageous model and data structure and so on and so on.
TheBigg, a bug in a program isn't as simple as a bug in an IE mod (omg inconsistent value causes crash in my ITM file); there are a much wider variety of these "bugs".

I probably don't have anything else to say. To sum up my opinion: I think that igi's decision to host those tools with the warning is correct. Most of the old TBG tools are obsolete and should not be used, but I feel that many people don't give the respect these tools would deserve. In their era, they were used, and -- surprise! -- not every mod was buggy and broken!

Edit: grammar, typos

Edited by Baronius, 19 June 2006 - 12:04 PM.

[Baronius]

I'll accept all of your vitriol if it makes you feel better, but I was only responsible for the middle of those three quotes.

No I felt and feel okay, I just said I could say no more to your comments
Well the middle quote only then, sorry, yet my statement still applies, just cut out the "you decide who the lost souls are and who aren't" part if you want -- I'm not sure though that this doesn't apply on you either.

Edit: To sum up, I thought you were a much more normal guy...

Anyhow I don't understand why certain people (including you JC) fight so hard to get these old tools removed from public access. Why not to deal with own stuff instead of others'? Everyone will learn from his/her own lesson. And that is the best lesson.

Edited by Baronius, 19 June 2006 - 12:00 PM.

[jcompton]

Because I don't like letting people fall into pits of vipers. And because...

...wait a second.

You're in on this joke too, aren't you, Baronius?

Just how far does this conspiracy go? Is this my own private Twilight Zone episode?

[NiGHTMARE]

On a related note, were the various authors asked for permission to host their tools?

I only ask because most of us know what a can of beans this sort of thing has opened up in the past...

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 19 June 2006 - 12:34 PM.

[the bigg]

You're in on this joke too, aren't you, Baronius?

It's more on the line of 'if I am not inside a joke, I will just eulogize it'. See EG the whole Improved Anvil embarassment.

Also, Baronius going "WHO TEH HELL ARE YOU???" on JCompton? Come on, that has got to be priceless.

EDIT:

On a related note, were the various authors asked for permission to host their tools?

I only ask because most of us know what a can of beans this sort of thing has opened up in the past...

If I were the author of IDU and I saw somebody duplicating it without my permission, I'd just hide under a rock, rather than resurface and claim ownership over that.

Unless it was released as a GPL project, in which case it'd be fine.

Edited by the bigg, 19 June 2006 - 12:36 PM.

[Plasmocat]

Why the hostility to the idea of re-opening TBG regardless of what they choose to offer? Yeah, I can see where the implication that TBG is being re-opened because other sites are uncreative and not innovative isn't necessarily the best way to announce on the boards you're advertising on that you're back in business ... but I wasn't sure if that wasn't just a case of being socially "awkward" more than it being a sense of back-handed ill will.

There was enough cross-over traffic between the boards before and there were plenty of ppl who were bummed out by its loss before that I'd have thought that overall it would be considered more good news than bad.

[Baronius]

Plasmocat: you've good points in your post which I can agree with.

JCompton:
If I remember correctly what igi said, the founders of the new TBG contacted former TeamBG members. I suppose not all of the tools' authors, but according to what Ken said, all tools' authors except Theo "shared the code".

I wouldn't like to react to the primitive comment of theBigg.

Edited by Baronius, 19 June 2006 - 12:51 PM.