I'm going to re-write the conversation.
@Thenomain said:
What would be best fix? I'm guessing that you're agreeing that it's in the "what comments are published?" part of the code.
@Groth said:
Yes. I can do this.
Cool. If you feel like taking a stab at it, sure.
@Cobaltasaurus said:
Gooooooood luuuuuuuuuuuuck!
Heh, yeah.
@TNP said:
I liked oWoD a lot more than nWoD. The latter seems very bland.
I think the design goal of nWoD is to become an urban fantasy-horror game. I mean, it's not, but while oWoD was really a Superhero game, nWoD is really a ... lower-powered Superhero game?
@Alzie said:
@Thenomain said:
A complete rewrite of the aJobs system would also be useful, but it's not likely to happen soon.
How badly do you want it?
Not that badly.
A complete rewrite of the aJobs system would also be useful, but it's not likely to happen soon.
@Groth, I also mused about changing how the system determines which comments to show, so yeah, preaching and choir et al.
What I asked, tho, is what would be best. I'm guessing you're saying you think this would be the best fix, which is cool and all but I'm kind of guessing.
The Metaplot had some of the best and worst things about oWoD.
On the plus side, you knew what the game world was about and it was about Being Awesome!!!!!11oneoneeleven.
On the negative side, Dragons, Exploded Gauntlet, Godzilla in the Land of the Dead, etc. etc.
On both sides, the Metaplot held the silliest things.
Best tangent yet. I tried to track down when bcc became a thing, but after 20 minutes gave up.
I'm probably going to change how the "is this published?" code works, but there is no optimal way to do it. If you're on 'opened_by', you're published.
Except... No. If on opened_by but not staff? I could add the function to +myjob/add, but even that feels like a kludge.
Where in this mess do you guys think would be the best place to add this functionality? Publishing the entire job is right out.
We hired more staffers. This means the game's heydays are over. Time to move on!
An interesting sidebar: I haven't seen a game fail so quickly as when they enforced a status quo.
As I said, if expected behavior was to have each person's comments hidden, then the accepted nomenclature for this is 'bcc'. Accepted as in older than aJobs or even Mud.
I shan't be publishing the entire job because staff still want to discuss things behind the scene, and it would disrupt their expected behavior as well.
Which is my gripe. It's about expected behavior. My expectations, it would seem, but I'm working on some five or so complaints that they can't see comments made by others. My best guess is because what "cc" means to the majority of end users.
Hence the "bcc" recommendation.
My venting about it is mostly because dealing with undocumented code is not fun on the best of days. Working out what aJobs is intending is a job in itself. It does a few beautiful things, but on the whole I dread even thinking about it.
I'll dial it back, tho, since this is now a discussion.
@Alzie said:
I'm not sure what that's about, but I gave you the full copy of myjob/cc above. In any case, I've said all I have to say about it and given you all the information you need to go forward.
Because:
@Thenomain said:
I am not looking for ideas on where I can patch this up. I know where I can, but I want the original code so I can do it in the expected manner.
@Thenomain said:
I know what I can do. I already mentioned that.
I was being an eternal optimist thinking that the behavior was not complete and it was me who was missing something. Best I can tell is you're telling me that this code is working exactly as it was designed.
If so, it's shitty design.
I'm sorry if it's yours and I'm insulting it, but if you 'cc' someone on a job, then I think it's pretty useless if people are not seeing the same job. 'bcc' would be a more appropriate switch in that case.
I do generally get frustrated when I implement someone else's half-assed code. Even if it's my half-assed code.
Yeah, anyway, done. I'll be completing this broken code when I can.
@Alzie said:
There is no source for this code. Therefore, it is shit.
Just making sure we're on the same page, here.
this is intended behavior - at least for the developers of anomaly jobs
That's awesome, but whomever created +myjob/cc should know this, as it works well enough around in the other games. As I didn't install it from base, I'm missing something.
I know what I can do. I already mentioned that. I'm funny that I'd like to do what the code creators expect, in case it has to be maintained by someone who's not me later on.
I dislike tags when I'm looking for something by category. I'd rather be expected to know what thing means by their definition than guessing what someone is calling it this week. My "neoretro history" tag would never be used and therefore be lost to people who might otherwise interested.
I think Google's approach to tags is the best ("let's see what's being talked about and how this relates to other things based upon this keyword"), but doubt it's worth it for finding pretendy text games.
I am using extended code for Anomaly Jobs that creates a switch, +myjob/cc and +job/cc. It adds more people to the 'opened by' list.
However, I didn't patch it from source. Instead, I grabbed the core command code from another game. Because of this, I am getting unexpected behavior. Mainly, if one person on the 'opened by' list uses +myjob/add, the comment cannot be read by anyone else on the job except staff.
Who coded this and where can I get the complete patch from?
Thanks.
(explanation of the issue: +myjob/add does not publish comments. Instead, the part of aJobs that determines whether or not a comment is published sees that the person who made the comment is the same person who opened the job, and considers that comment published. That is, it's logically-publsihed instead of set-as-published. When you have multiple people on the 'opened by' attribute on the job, the logic which determines which comments are published fails, and people can only see their own.
I am not looking for ideas on where I can patch this up. I know where I can, but I want the original code so I can do it in the expected manner.)
@Sunny said:
In other words, you assholes (I say it lovingly) knew what I meant.
I can't see why anyone would get confused about what Steampunk is about.
@Coin said:
Genere and sub-genre, to me, are the same thing [...] That's all I meant.
Well it's pretty clear that I didn't know this is what you meant, and that I agree with you, and that you should stop distracting me from coding.
What @Chime describes, to me, is Victorian Nationalism fantasy, whatever other elements it's mashed up against to make Bronte Babies. If Mickey Mouse wearing goggles gets to be "Steampunk", I'm not sure what it is other than fashion, set-peices, compelling ephemera. "Seven Samurai" is a Western, even if it's set in Japan (and copied enough times to be undeniably fundamental as well as excellent). Kurosawa didn't make a new genre; the setting is ephemera, but damn if it isn't compelling.
What I don't think Steampunk has is the ability to stand on its own. That is, I don't think we can't have anything but "Steampunk And...", which is a comment I started my opinion with, mostly so that nobody worried that they weren't doing "pure Steampunk".
@Coin, I'm going to be briefly frustrating (on purpose, that is) to make a point: Science Fiction is, IMO, a sub-genre of Fiction.
This may be true, but so what? I hesitated early on to be clear that I am not the Genre Police because statements like "punk is not a musical genre" leads us down so many rat-holes to fill any ten academic institutions.
I once insulted an author at a dinner with authors after he said he's working on a Steampunk Novel and asked him, "What is Steampunk?"
I was once insulted by a panel of authors (known, published names at that) when they said that Cyberpunk is empty and challenged the notion by bringing up the way that Cyberpunk, especially from the original source, is mainly about socioeconomic interactions. They laughed.
I once sincerely believed that the drum was not an instrument, in the way that 'null' is not a number; something without which the rest is impossible to describe, but still not an instrument. I feel bad for my younger, stupider self for being so conceitedly wrong.
We have opinions on what is and isn't a genre, but what I want to know, if it is a genre or a sub-genre or a sub-sub-sub-genre, what defines it?
For me it depends on the enormity of the event. Isn't it strange that we're more okay playing alt-history for the real world than alt-history for fictional worlds. We don't care who ended up saying "Ich Bin Ein Berliner," but god forbid if we don't get to see Serenity dive-bomb Persephone with a Reaver hot on their tail.
I don't know who decides what a genre is, but in discussions I've seen and had, Steampunk is either 'around the Victorian era with steam-and-gear anacrotech' or 'a fashion style'. Neither is compelling for a literary style. I'm certainly not going to be the arbiter of this, but when this is as Steampunk as this, I wonder if there is more to it than "check it! gears!"
It's why I like saying that I like "neo-Victorian" and not "Steampunk". Hell, I like "neoretro" now,
edit: Is it Steampunk Pulp? Is it Steampunk High Magic? Is it Steampunk Grit? Steampunk Post-Apoc? I think Steampunk as more a flavor or a setting element, and not itself a thing. How about that?