Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans

[Whorfin]

Vance,

> Whorfin, I think that should have been in MA...

I don't have a clue what you mean, and the only thing I can think of is that you mean I should have put it in an admin thread. I didn't do so because (a) the discussion started here, so it seemed appropriate to reply here, (b) I can't PM, so I can't have private discussions, (c) I don't want to take to the administrative section and make a big deal out of it because I have no problem with the moderation, and at this time I just want to deal with my end of the problem. I am trying to find the best way to be in compliance and still be able to participate. I have asked for his guidance, suggested possible solutions, and I don't think that is an inappropriate response.

I have no problem with Ptrope or his actions, he was both kind, proper, and correct. I would prefer not to cause problems here, and that's why I explained my actions and asked for guidance. I have issues with some of the board rules but other than pointing out how they would cause certain types of members issues (such as myself) I have no intention of causing an uproar about it here, and I have no problem with how Ptrope is enforcing said rules.

I don't understand why the length of my post was a concern, at all -- I can understand it being an annoyance to all (but members are not required to read it) but not an administrative issue. Frankly, other than two or three brief sentences it was the minimum length necessary to explain what I had done and what the implications were. AFAIK my work was one of the things people had been asking for, and wondered what was possible, and here is one answer. It was on-topic for both the thread and forum. If it is actually a problem then my participation here is probably incompatible with continued membership. Its a very serious issue to me, whether its really an issue to Ptrope awaits on his clarification.

And I still don't know why the board should be receiving duplicate posts from me (after my initial posting debacles, where my messages were being shelved without being approved), but on this end I have made what modifications I can to assure that its not a configuration issue here. I apologize if I am to blame, I am just not sure how, as I've said I'm hitting submit once. The problem appears to be continuing, with variations: here is a brand new error message when after submitting I am told I must log in, and upon logging in I received this response:

vBulletin Message

Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.​

I was not having these sorts of problems a week or so ago. My computer has not changed, perhaps the BBS settings or code has. Because of this error (after checking that the post had not apparently gone through) I decided to repaste the post in a new message window and resend it (rather than reloading the previous page). If this post is duplicated, you again have my apologies.

What I do know is that the topic of the thread seems to have been derailed, and that seems to be because of my actions. This has happened either because I have drawn administrative attention, or Ptrope really is right that my posts 'clogged' the normal thread 'flow'. After investing so much time, and with great appreciation to Mr. Shaw & Tin_Man, I had hoped my effort would have sparked at least some hardcore discussion, even if its considered wrong. My suggestion is that the other members ignore the issues hanging over me and I'll patiently wait for further instructions.

 

[Albertese]

Worfin,

I think all you're being asked to do is be a bit more concise. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say and I like your posts, but I'd like to have time to read them all though. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of time. I for one (and BTW, I'm not a moderator or anyone with any real authority at all) would ask you to be a little less verbose. Besides, I think we're getting a little far afield of the "Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans".

Three cheers for the economy of words!

Humbly,

--Alex

 

[Ptrope]

Whorfin, since you can't PM, I'll post this here; just keep in mind:

You don't need to make a separate post for every person to whom you respond, if you're doing them all at the same time; either break up your post so it's clear to whom you're speaking, or, if you need to quote multiple posts, use the "Multi-quote" feature (quoting only what's necessary - don't quote an entire post just to respond to it). It's mostly a matter of good netiquette, but, again, the rules do frown upon posting, then writing a new post and posting it as soon as it's done, and then again, and then again, etc., etc. without a break or a response - just wait until you have all of your thoughts addressed, and post once. Also, rather than dragging the topic afield with questions about the moderation or rules, esp. in posts that are of such length, you might ask those questions in the "Questions, Suggestions and Feedback" forum, and drop me a line to read them (ptrope at gmail dot com) until such time as you can PM me directly. The same thing applies to questions about errors or posting problems - QSF is the best place to address them, rather than going off-topic; there wasn't really a need to use the MA forum, since no warning was given.

Thanks,
Ptrope

 

[Whorfin]

Ptrope,

Whorfin, since you can't PM, I'll post this here; just keep in mind:

Sorry for replying in the thread, I was a little uncertain about what the best course of action was, would have preferred to just PM but couldn't, considered emailing you (we've corresponded briefly in the past) but didn't want to be rude by bothering you off-board regarding on-board issues, and as I have said didn't want to escalate it into a moderation issue because I agree you are within the rules in this judgment. I may drop you a line and try to discuss my concerns in more detail. I will try to conform to my best understanding of the advice you're given, but I'm still unclear on your interpretation of certain points (apologies). Assuming I continue to participate (see next message).

+++

To other members of the thread. Frankly, I'm puzzled. If the implication is that a brief, glib response is desirable, but a detailed examination of a technical topic -- while it is being discussed by others -- is disruptive and unwanted, then I probably am on the wrong board. What further puzzles me more in that the amount of time I have read posts here, I've seen other people making posts not that dissimilar from mine (in overall length if nothing else), and I've never seen anyone complain about them: just the opposite. I have the opposite complaint, I've seen many posts where I wish that the poster had said much more, as they clearly know more about the topic.

No one is forced to read my posts. I did request that people who contemplated pointing out perceived mistakes in the diagram I recently posted read the notes first, but I can't force anyone to do that. The notes were actually there to (a) let people know how I arrived at my conclusions, (b) exactly what those conclusions were, (c) how to repeat and adapt my suggestions in furthering their own work. I consider (c) the most important part. I don't consider the work original, others here have probably done the same twenty years ago, but it answers certain questions here. In regards to the comments about" cruisers", if anyone felt that they weren't interested in the post, that it was too long for them to pay attention to, etc., then I certainly don't want them to read it and they can ignore it.

I don't understand the underlying assumptions I seem to be contravening that (a) every post must be read -- and perhaps fully understood -- by every member of the board, (b) posts must not exceed the lowest common denomenators to allow this to occur, (c) posts must occur in a certain temporal sequence otherwise they are highly disruptive, (d) the importance of the pace of the discussion seems much more important than the content. As a former moderator/forum-owner, I never had the problem where people were posting too much or too often on-topic. I had the opposite problem, where people were either flaming each other, or posting inflammatory off-topic material, or simply not posting. So I just don't understand this. I'm not saying I'm not a moron for what or how I post, I just don't understand the strength of the reaction.

In regards to the posts I've made being off-topic to the thread. Either they are absolutely on-topic to the thread (I guess you can ask Tin_Man for a deliberation point by point), or they were tangents started by someone else and which continued to be discussed by other members. So I find it interesting that somehow I am to blame for them because I bothered to take the questions seriously.

I had hoped after today to get back to 'normal operations'. I had hoped that Ptrope would pop in and give me some direction to follow, which he did and which I am very grateful for. I had hoped that there would be at least some discussion of either the diagram or notes I had posted. I had hoped I could start work on another diagram and there would be some interest in that. Instead there seems to be dissatisfaction not only with the manner of my postings but with the content. So at this point it is very, very hard for me to disagree that for whatever reason I am a disruptive influence, seemingly hopelessly so. Since discussion of the entire thread has stopped, I see no reason to believe that this is not the case. I don't know how to contribute meaningfully to this thread under these circumstances. I can modify my manner of posting to satisfy the rules (depending upon the nature of the rules), but if the content of my posts is both undesirable and un-ignorable, then I am perplexed.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Whorfin, the contents of your posts are both desirable and welcomed. I have no problem with this thread meandering here and there a bit, regardless of who posts what. If this thread stayed strictly on topic It'd be dead already! I'm still waiting for feedback about my crazy idea above, perhaps I should take the silence as a total dismissal? Anywho, Praetor should be coming along with some interesting things I hope?

 

[Captain Robert April]

The points are appreciated, Whorfin. We just don't need the entire freakin' encyclopedia when a paragraph or two will suffice.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Whorfin, your definatly thorough, which is generally a good thing, but here it can be a little daunting, less is more as it were.
And please, everyone, if you want to add your two cents worth to the above thats fine, but throw a little something into your post that's germane to the topic, lets try to get this thread back on track, thanks.

 

[largo]

just a quick reply, since i suspect my opinion may be an outlier... but i much prefer the consistency of FJ's collection over the 'canon' models and all their subtle differences. in my mind, they are the real plans, and all that stuff on-screen is the result of imperfect implementation. nevermind the reality, spock!

and my 2cp wrt whorfin and his posting habits... good gawds, if we can't be huge, enormous nerds posting volumes of fantastical arcana here, where shall we be? the posting rules are bunk, go lord whorfin!

 

[Whorfin]

Tin_Man,

Your proposal would have been farther down the road, at this point we were hashing out generalities of the design, not the specifics. At least that's what I was doing. I have been distracted from answering you and I apologize for that. If you need to add machinery in, put it in place of something in the appropriate area.

+++

CRA,

You overlooked the opportunity to set up a profitable 'Cliff Notes' franchise on my posts. You gotta have the lobes man, gotta have the lobes.

+++

At this point it seems the system will not restart itself until the toxic assets are removed. So I will no longer post content in this thread. Please get back to talking about FJ. Thanks, sincerely, for the good times and apologies to all I offended.

 

[TIN_MAN]

^^ No need to exile yourself Whorfin, I at least apreciate what you have to say, and it wasn't your fault the thread stalled, it just hit a 'speed bump' as it were. No need to apologize either, as no offense was taken. On the other hand, I hope no offense was given, if so then please accept my apologies. But if you still don't want to participate here, then at least consider opening your own thread to share your views and ideas? And as for my crazy idea, yeah, it was a bit early for that, but I want to keep things interesting and moving along. As for adding machinary, well, Actually I'm all for leaving FJ's Plans pretty much the way they are with only minor tweaks, but I'm also open to suggestion and trying out different things.

 

[Shawnster]

just a quick reply, since i suspect my opinion may be an outlier... but i much prefer the consistency of FJ's collection over the 'canon' models and all their subtle differences. in my mind, they are the real plans, and all that stuff on-screen is the result of imperfect implementation. nevermind the reality, spock!

I hear you there. It seems like TPTB (and many of us fans) expect a new ship design every time a new ship is shown or mentioned. How many different classes of ship are currently serving in Starfleet? How long are the classes allowed to serve before decommission or replacement? Seems like a waste to me, as if there aren't enough things the Starfleet staff has to worry about so they keep introducing new classes of ships. What, are there only 1 or 2 ships in the class?

I just shrug and go along with it.

Of course the real reason why I love the FJ universe of ships is that I played SFB years ago. Those were the ships that filled in the rest of the fleet in my imagination. Then when I would watch TMP and hear them refer to ships and registry numbers that were in the Tech Manual - icing on the cake!

 

[Praetor]

Well we do have to decide that one of the TOS models, or a compromise as FJ did, is the 'true' representation of that ship, else the ship would change appearance every other scene in the Pre-Mastered series as they alternated between stock footage.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Hey guys (& gals?), check these out,
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/Icars/blueprints/deck-plans/index.ph
and...
http://www.geocities.com/brookstephen/urml-tos-enterprise.htm
whatdya think? pretty cool eh!

 

[AJBryant]

I'd be more impressed if either link actually led to anything....

 

[TIN_MAN]

What? DOH! That's why I hate using links, they never work for me
Well, lets try this again, the 1st ones cygnus X1, which I'm sure everyone knows, but there's a new interactive FJ blueprint available.
The 2cnd one is a 3d 'life size' virtual reality computer generated deck by deck plan based on FJ's work, just do a search for brookestephen tos enterprise and you should be able to find it.

 

[Michael]

The first link actually does work. There was just a little typo in the URL. Here's the correct version:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/deck-plans/index.php

Cool stuff.

EDIT: As for the second link, it's the same problem, just a minor typo. Here you go:

http://www.geocities.com/brookestephen/vrml_tos_enterprise.htm

 

[TIN_MAN]

Thanks NCC-1701, your my new best friend!

 

[Michael]

Thanks NCC-1701, your my new best friend!

No problem. You are welcome.

 

[Whorfin]

Tin_Man,

> No need to exile yourself Whorfin, I at least apreciate
> what you have to say, and it wasn't your fault the
> thread stalled, it just hit a 'speed bump' as it were.

Out of courtesy, I'll explain myself -- once again going off topic. From my point of view there is a need.

As we know there are complaints about the content of my posts. Assuming the points are legitimate (which I would have some issues with, though not their sincerity), there's not much I can do. For example, with the last two diagrams I posted, this involved something on the order of 20 hours work over the course of two nights. Probably twice as much was deleted and rewritten as appears in the final text. Every sentence is repeatedly scrutinized and (depending upon deficiencies) refined, modified, discarded, replaced, and finally kept. Now after all that, I suppose I could take another hour to hack 1/2, or 2/3, or 3/4, or whatever amount is finally satisfactory to the audience, out but its hard for me to see that as improving the work.

Now one can say, "well, don't do so much". It doesn't work that way. Its difficult to explain but the way my brain processes these concepts is something like a 'slowly evolving whole-ness'. One metaphor would be seeds grow into roots, which grow into branches and leaves. Asking me to do less is a bit like asking a spider to weave its web using half the strands. It either will fail or will do a very bad job. All that work is part of the process, and cutting it short will have bad results, like baking a cake in half the time.

On the other hand, theories of communication generally put the blame on a failure to communicate on the transmitter, not the receiver. So if no one is listening (or can't understand, or aren't interested), not only am I wasting my time but its also my fault. And I am listening to the complaints, and I would love to write shorter, particularly briefer, posts. If someone would come and replace my brain that would solve any number of problems. And the more I work on these materials the more technical my jargon is becoming, but upon review the jargon is correct and it would make the posts longer to reduce the overly technical nature of this technical topic.

I was enjoying this thread very much, and now quite the opposite has been the outcome. About half my interest in participating in this entire forum has evaporated, and my decision seems the only way to get discussion back on track. And frankly I have no interest in posting material that are widely disliked. So not participating here is the only viable solution I see.

In terms of contributing, shortly I hope to be making posts in a different thread on the forum. The posts will probably be longer than typical, so I intend to slap on appropriate Surgeon General warning stickers. If they continue to be disatisfactory there is no need for me to actively participate at all. That's just a fact, not spite.

 

[Shaw]

Whorfin,

I've greatly enjoyed reading your posts and didn't have any problem with the length.

I was under the impression that Ptrope was suggesting collecting a number of those posts together into a couple posts rather than six separate posts. I know that for such occasions I generally use a divider to help show a change in subject within a post... like this:

____________​

I'd like to think that my posts are nicely formatted, specially as I hand code my posts while writing them off-line. There are only a handful of tags to learn, but I've been posting so long on boards like this that they have become second nature at this point for me.

But on the subject of responses... I stated that I was mainly a spectator in this thread and I've been overwhelmed with other things the last week. Besides, the subject has hot and cold patches. So if you have more to say, just say it. People will get back around to reading it again soon enough.

Just stay true to the material and say what you have to say.