=- James Cameron wrote on Sun 23.Mar'08 at 19:58:11 +1100 -=

> > > Think of the scientific method, where no scientist trusts
> > > anothers results unless they are reproducible, and
> > > reproducibility depends not only on the truth of the findings
> > > but also the documentation of the experiment.
> > 
> > Now... this is "just a game". And it doesn't even cost money.
> > It doesn't need to be scientifically foolproof.
> > It needs more people participating.
> So you think that participation by more people is more important
> than the reliability and rigour of the blessing process.
> Interesting. You place more value in votes than results.

Yes, in this case, as I see it.
What good are results when very few vote at all?
The quality filter/ process can return once the quantity is back again.
I rather rely more on trust in the more participants than a
foolproof code.
 Finding someone do the complete thing is harder than finding a few
sharing it and replacing single failures to keep it running.

> > > We have that already.
> > 
> > *sigh*
> > 
> > Now you, too, ignore the context of that question.
> The context was there, and I saw you had said of others that the
> context was ignored, so I tried really hard to perceive the
> context.
> I think you have done a bad job of establishing context.

I actually did a bad job when talking to you, I regret that
with hindsight.
I remembered wrong that you _had_ a different use for
"key-management" than the one on my mind, as opposed to having none,
what I believed until now.

> (Mind you, about this time last year we were demanding that you
> include context, and ask simple questions rather than long ones,
> so I suggest that the real problem is a semantic barrier rather
> than a formatting issue.)

Probably, given that I still believe back than I was giving context,
just as today a different than you (want(ed) to) have.

> > With key-management I connect a set of features declared "valid", so
> > players can rely on "fair play" when they use different clients.
> > 
> > You apparently only refer to the blessing process alone. This
> > doesn't serve anything except to verify that the code originates
> > from his author, but not what the code does.
> > 
> > The latter is the desire, which isn't fulfilled yet.
> It is fulfilled.

Ok, that was a typo now.
Yes, the latter is fullfilled.
But the former is desired, too, but not equally fullfilled.

> > If the purpose of the blessing is not "fair play", what is it?
> For you, the purpose appears to be ...

I was asking about current practice.

> 1. maximise the number of people involved in the process so as to
> create a sense of popular approval of the process which will have
> a greater weight than technical analysis,

This is how it works with masses.

> 2. waste the time of Bronco developers as a means to make Paradise
> thrive.


How does this relate?

Funny... if you seriously believe I want to bring down any netrek
just for itself or even to push Paradise, then you never should have
responded in the first place.

> > Maybe because you and I don't share the same interests in the
> > game.
> I don't get to play against you. You're never on pickled when I
> join.
> {...}
> I don't care for success.

Those answers pretty much bring it to the point.

> Kill-filed for a month.

As you wish, but a little too late now.

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.