The place to talk about Transport Tycoon
https://www.tt-forums.net/
I would certainly agree. This is very much a community effort and as such it should be created with the community in mind.michael blunck wrote:First I´d like to have a poll about the "official rules", especially the time frame. I don´t think that two or three people should be allowed to arbitrarily change those once settled rules. If at all, this must be decided in public.
regards
Michael
If we get it first then we'll skip may award and it may start a bad tradition to skip awardsmichael blunck wrote:First I´d like to have a poll about the "official rules", especially the time frame. I don´t think that two or three people should be allowed to arbitrarily change those once settled rules. If at all, this must be decided in public.
. So we can run it in parallel. We can have 2 topics with 2 polls, can't we? 
April award had 6 entries, may award may have 7, so 8 is fine now.They can go out control even when we have rules if we trymichael blunck wrote:But if we don´t stick to publicly accepted rules, the whole thing goes out of control.George wrote:Did you forget the main idea of the award? To make artists make more graphics. If we skip a round artists would move their contributions to the next months instead of making a new one.
And it can be stable without rules if we'll focus our efforts on it. I mean, we can start working on rules, but in parallel, not INSTEAD OF may awardWell, that is fine to accept them now - we'll maybe force new graphics for June awardmichael blunck wrote:Meanwhile, it´s may 13th and there are still contributions which should have been made until april 30th.
I had a look at 2005 events and made a conclusion, that 1 month interval is the best. We can discuss it, but I think it is a good solution to choose 1 month interval.michael blunck wrote:And your above argument is somewhat silly. "To make artists make more graphics" we could even shorten the interval (against the original rules, o/c).
No. We did not. I don't know why do you try to force this solution, may be you are preparing something special and need about a week to finish it and at the same time you don't want to skip the may award, but I don't think it is fair.michael blunck wrote:And yes, we already skipped the may round. Period.
Well, Michael, why not?michael blunck wrote:Possibly because there were no contributions from the artists´ side for that month. But how could you try to enforce that their contributions for june should now be for may? Just to hold up the impression that there were "more graphics"? No, George. Not this way.
You did not conceal me, Michael. Not this time. I think we need to start may award now.Thanks, Dave.Dave Worley wrote:This is very much a community effort and as such it should be created with the community in mind.
is fruitless, because doing so would be against the rules which have been agreed upon by the community before and there hasn´t been any commitment on changing them as of late.2Lakie: Could you please start may award now, running for 2 weeks?
I don´t "try to enforce" to skip the may contest. In fact, according to the rules, may contest has been skipped because there were no contributions and it would be indeed unfair to "enforce" a may contest in retrospective for contributors who want to stick to the rules. Insofar, you are "enforcing" something in contradiction to the accepted rules.I don't know why do you try to force this solution, may be you are preparing something special and need about a week to finish it and at the same time you don't want to skip the may award, but I don't think it is fair.
That is not fair.WhiteHand wrote:The may awards have been skipped. As michael pointed out, there were no contributions.
That means any contribution before 9-th may is accepted.WhiteHand wrote:A week.George wrote:How much time would we give them to do it?WhiteHand wrote:They need to enter their graphics themselves.
Why shouldn´t he, now that someone pointed out the flaw?You can't change your position upon Michaels demand.
And not your? There was a year delay before I digged it up. I suggested some rules, but there were no voting for it nor discussion of the rules. So you CAN'T say that there are rules for these awards. There is only a suggestion by George, nothing more.michael blunck wrote:This isn´t your thread and o/c it isn´t your undertaking.
What is the community thing? The forum, the thread, the award? Stop playing tricks of law, "community" does not need it. We are not discussing you copyrights issues now.michael blunck wrote:Instead, as Dave pointed out, it´s a community thing.
Who set the rules? Where? Michael, stop these silly tricks of law. There was no rules. There was only one postmichael blunck wrote:As such we have to stick to the rules set by the community
Do you call it rules? Do not make me laugh, MichaelGeorge wrote:May I dig out this topic? Thank you Wink
It seems to me that less and less finished graphics appear recently (Well, it looks like that). So, I think it may be not a bad idea to make a monthly contest for graphics artists and reward the winner with the honorary title "artist of the month", so every winner could put the icon into his signature (like "best moderator 2006" icon for example). May be it would increase the amount of new graphics.
The rules of the contest could be very simple. Every artist may post his graphics (but only one thing a month) into this thread. If some wants, he can replace the previously posted one with a new one. On the 1-st day of the next month the voting for artists begins and goes one week. After a week the winner gets the award. At the same time (since 1-st day of the month) graphics for the next month are also collected for the next round.
There are no rules, so I can't change them. If MY suggestions about rules are rules - then I can change them on my demand.michael blunck wrote:and a single person (you) may not change them deliberately to their own purpose.
Michael, are you lawyer?michael blunck wrote:I.e., a statemenet likeis fruitless, because doing so would be against the rules which have been agreed upon by the community before2Lakie: Could you please start may award now, running for 2 weeks?
As I pointed to Dave, Whitehand moved it to 8th may, so we have at least 6 contributions for may. You can ignore it but I hope community will not.michael blunck wrote:The deadline for the may contest has been april 30th
I suppose this contributions would appear between may award start and 1st of junemichael blunck wrote:and up to this date there haven´t been any contributions. I.e., now we´re preparing for the june contest and the deadline for this one is may, 31st.
I repeat: there were no rules, so I can't break themmichael blunck wrote:I repeat: there has been no agreement until now to change the rules set before and you´re not entitled to change them on a single vote basis.
How much time do you want to repeat this statement to make people belive in it? I can repeat that you are wrong here as much times as required.michael blunck wrote:I don´t "try to enforce" to skip the may contest. In fact, according to the rules, may contest has been skipped because there were no contributions and it would be indeed unfair to "enforce" a may contest in retrospective for contributors who want to stick to the rules. Insofar, you are "enforcing" something in contradiction to the accepted rules.I don't know why do you try to force this solution, may be you are preparing something special and need about a week to finish it and at the same time you don't want to skip the may award, but I don't think it is fair.
I do not break the rules. See above.michael blunck wrote:George, why are you so inclined to break the once established rules?
Your war against may award only decreases this timemichael blunck wrote:First problem with your "proposal" is that there will be less time for the June contest.
we can all together work to prevent it in future, but it is not a reason to skip may award.michael blunck wrote:Second problem is that there will be similar proposals in the future and with likewise good (or bad) reasons.
enough George wrote:The rules of the contest could be very simple. [...] On the 1-st day of the next month the voting for artists begins
George wrote:Do you call it rules? Do not make me laugh, Michael
Well, apparently your proposal had been accepted publicly and thus turned into the "official rules".George wrote:There are no rules, so I can't change them. If MY suggestions about rules are rules - then I can change them on my demand.
Unless it it stated somewhere, it is proposal, not the rule. Michael, find me any document that allows transforming proposal into law without special procedures of adoption of statute.michael blunck wrote:George wrote:The rules of the contest could be very simple. [...] On the 1-st day of the next month the voting for artists beginsGeorge wrote:Do you call it rules? Do not make me laugh, MichaelWell, apparently your proposal had been accepted publicly and thus turned into the "official rules".George wrote:There are no rules, so I can't change them. If MY suggestions about rules are rules - then I can change them on my demand.
I got tired with these tricks, Michael.michael blunck wrote:And in good democratic tradition, a rule once approved, cannot be changed again by the former proposer without renewed public approval.
You mean your thread your rules? Ok, starting a new threadWhiteHand wrote:George: Firstly, the moderators will not be creating a poll. This is my thread, to do with as I wish. I apologise for giving you the thought that the competition would run over time - this is not the case. Due to being very busy over the last few weeks, I've been unable to donate much time to the forums, and only had a short amount of time to skim over. Michael is right in this situation.
> Childish as ever, I see.George wrote:Ok, starting a new thread
Because It would be not wise to become a moderator and change WhiteHand's thread.michael blunck wrote:> Childish as ever, I see.George wrote:Ok, starting a new thread
Well, could somebody tell me why I was so sure that George´s next action would to start his own "artists´ competition thread"?
Go, go, go!!!michael blunck wrote:And yeah, I could do as well, why not? Or are there other volunteers to do so, just to avoid me being even more childish as George?
You mean all the other should shut up?Purno wrote:Why do people always have to fight about things which should be fun. This is already the 2nd voting which ends in a fight. Please let the original creator, who came with the original idea, decide how to do it.
