Moderator: Cartographers
It's pretty much right, but qwert is not acting on the will of the foundry at large. Regarding blurring the WWII map's edges, he made an unfair poll in which the options are NO, YES, and a thinly disguised NO, and right now the YES option is winning, despite his sabotage. He still won't change the borders. Why? Because "other maps are bad." Well, if you're a cook and you see that some other restaurants have crappy food, you don't start making crappy food and then get mad at the customers for not eating at your restaurant.boberz wrote:can i assume all this is correct and nobody has any issues with this whatsoever
ok its al your choiseqwert wrote:Molacole if you dont erase these in 4 i will contact Andy to do something with these. In map foundry you can not insulting people who not insulting you, and if you got something against me go in some other place not in my topic.
Wisse you have so many old topic who not lock, and like Andy explain, he lock topic when hes got nothing with Map foundry
Its a perfectly good comparison Hulmey. Sometimes I wonder how old you are. The fact that you can't see how slanted the current poll is, and that you don't seem to grasp the fundemental foundry process say a lot. Its not a simple 'go with the majority'. It works more subtly than that. Even if one person suggests something, as long as you can't see a valid reason for it to be kept the same you have a duty to at least give it a try. 'I've made enough changes already' isn't a good enough reason. If Qwert can't actively justify why having jagged borders is better then he should change them. it shouldn't have got anywhere near a vote. In my Mongol map at the moment I have the same issue. I didn't think the borders were jagged, but Andy asked me to go through and smooth them over. I've done that where I can see they are less than perfect because I don't have a justified argument in keeping it the same. Now when he (or others) comment again they may ask me to go over some other areas. And I will. Sure I'd like it to be quenched now but we're working for the good of a community here not just my own personal glory. I always have the option of abandoning it. This process worked fine for the Arctic map, Australia map, the Chinese Checkers map, King of the Mountains... All of which got quenched after passing through the foundry properly. There's no quick way. All of those people made every change they could when people suggested them unless they could present a valid argument against it.hulmey wrote:Cless, have you been reading the posts from the beginning of qwerts map or just the last 3 pages....
Qwert has said he will do what the will of the majority want. In a democracy the will of the majority always prevails!!!!!!!!!!
And as for you r comparisons abouting eating at a retaurant..WHAT THE f*ck!!!
How old are you?
Probably staying away in a mature and sensible way, unlike mecassar and guiscard both wrong.....THis is a valid discussion....Because some idoit comes a long and starts flaming why should you move topic to flame wars....
The elite group who this thread is aimed at....where are they
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Exavtly. Childishness.boberz wrote:the poll is slanted but i dont understand why (and yes i have followed all his topics including the WW1 topic) as to why qwert doesnt just change it . I am told that it is easy it definately does not look worse and even his own twisted poll shows atleast 30 people wanting a change
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
I've followed the entire thread, from the beginning to when he made the poll and to now when he's waffling over Urkanian/Russian romanizations. I don't see how you have any reason to think otherwise.hulmey wrote:Cless, have you been reading the posts from the beginning of qwerts map or just the last 3 pages....
Great. 53% want the borders blurred. Let's do it.Qwert has said he will do what the will of the majority want. In a democracy the will of the majority always prevails!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't understand, here's a wikipedia article that could possibly shed some light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaphorAnd as for you r comparisons abouting eating at a retaurant..WHAT THE f*ck!!!
And a second, to help you make somewhat more sensible posts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemHow old are you?
Well, clearly my attempt at English is no match for your superior ability to debate and make a fine point relevant to the topic. I guess you didn't read the article on ad hominem attacks because you already understand their usage so well!hulmey wrote:Well chess, i dont need some yankee cousin telling me how to speak my own language...Proper English, not that homey or dawg bullshit you speak.
I know exactly what your failed restaurant comparison is all about!!!
Maybe you want to brush up onyour dry sacarsm abit..The english are quite good at it...Maybe you would like to pop over to my house for a couple of tea and a few lessons.
However we are making maps not freakin dining!!
I think this is a bit off. It may apply to game play factors which are less subjective than a persons personal aesthetic taste. If one person said "I don't like the font" the map maker shouldn't have a duty to try out different fonts until that person is satisfied. If there are multiple requests for the same change, well thats different. But if a mapmaker acted on everyones request all the time that's akin to pleasing 100% of the people 100% of the time, and player A likes font Y and player B likes font Z, you have created conflict.Guiscard wrote:[ Its not a simple 'go with the majority'. It works more subtly than that. Even if one person suggests something, as long as you can't see a valid reason for it to be kept the same you have a duty to at least give it a try. 'I've made enough changes already' isn't a good enough reason.