33 replies to this topic

[Galapo]

I allways try to find out "What is different between yours and mine system".
When I get the failure also with wb 80, what did not fail on your system, the reason can really not be, that a (in this case unused) development version is additionally on my system.

Sure that could have been the problem. You indicated that you were testing with a default LiveXP recommended as supplied from the server. That's exactly what I was testing with. The only other variable in the equation was the alpha. So I assumed you'd done your initial test with it, it had corrupted something in your project, and so your subsequent tests with 080 also failed as a result. How was I to know that you weren't actually testing with LiveXP recommended supplied default from the server when you'd in fact indicated you were? In this situation, I could not do anything but conclude that there was something wrong with the alpha. In retrospect, I guess you're saying that I should not have taken your word that you were testing with default settings supplied from the server and that the error must not be either with the alpha, nor the actual script which you were claiming was buggy, but with you having done some clicking or editing and mucked up the project yourself such that it could no longer be considered default nor recommended but was bound to fail with errors? I sorry, the fault lie with me then if that's the case.

Regards,
Galapo.

[pscEx]

... , but with you having done some clicking or editing and mucked up the project yourself such that it could no longer be considered default nor recommended but was bound to fail with errors?

I guess there has been something with that. But I do not remember to have clicked.

Peter

[patsch]

And it all seems a bit of déjà vu to me. Jaclaz was somehow made out to be a badboy by some and felt he couldn't continue as mod. Now Lancelot is being made out to be the badboy by some. So you want Lancelot to step down? Well, what will that achieve? Let's just grow up a little.

ok, to say it clearly why I opened this thread (Lancelot unfortunately did not understood it and I do not want to explain it to him a third and forth time)

- I had a problem with LiveXP, I thought that there was a bug but I was not sure about it, therefore I placed the question mark at the end of the thread title

- Galapo was so kind to answer in a very friendly way and in a way to point me in one direction that he thinks of was the reason for my problem. That way to answer questions was very good: direct, friendly and descriptive (and lets the possibility open that nevertheless it could give another reason) ... so that I can learn from that and I think others that are in the same situation also ... thanks a lot for that

- then the answer of Lancelot ... 2 parts:
1. "there is no bug" : please, you are project admin. You now much more about the project than others (e.g. me). If it is clear to you why that is not a bug and must be a fault by enduser (namely me) then please tell it to the world. Why is it not a bug? Because the grass is green or the sky is blue? If you know it, other may not and it is up to you to explain why is it so. Only to say that this is not a bug is very frustrating because from your answer it is not clear what is the reason why you came to that point. Keep that in mind: as project admin you know more about the project than the enduser!

2. "use LiveXP" : it is not my fault that you draw a wrong conclusion. Why you simply stated that I have to use LiveXP without asking if it is so? The thread is in the correct sub forum. Is that the normal way? Not to ask questions just to state one has to do it right?

- these two answers in one post were very frustrating and after laughing at my statement to not continue on LiveXP I said to him that it is surely not the good way to act like that ... I can live with that but there are more people that read the posts and read the reactions on questions and problems ... and that should not be the goal in winbuilder comm ... and this hint is agressive for Lancelot and because of that he closes the thread: sorry, that is not agressive in any way and closing a thread with a personal opinion (and writing this down) is not good moderation work. And also not good because there was no final solution or final statement for the problem because I answered on Galapo's post that my source is different and that I wanted to get another one and test again.

I would not have opened this thread if Lancelot or another Mod seperated the OffTopic and remarks to only post OnTopic (imho the best way) or at least to write "Closed because OffTopic" or something similar ... but this way because he did not act as project admin, he draw a wrong conclusion and then he passes the buck to me is imho no good Mod behaviour.

oh man, again a long post, sorry for that.
That are my last words to this topic (and for me as thread starter it is ok if a mod closes this thread) and I hope I find my motivation (that is gone atm) again to do something for other projects (nothing more for LiveXP to avoid working with Lancelot) ...
Thanks again to Galapo for his post to my problem.

[PaPeuser]

Lancelot did nothing wrong.

[carloscape]

I wonder if a bitch / complaint forum should be started to address this kind of situations.

Clearly, some people will feel offended by Lancelot and some won't. I would like to believe he didn't try on purpose to offend anyone. I don't think you will arrive to a consensus on whether his behavior was acceptable. An appropriate end to it would be that all the involved parties issue an apology if their comments hurt any one's feelings or sensibilities, and agree to be more sensitive with their posts in the future.

[Ariom]

I think Lancelot did nothing wrong.
He's Fair enough in that particular thread.
It's just a mere of "MISUNDERSTANDING" maybe....

And I hope nobody in this thread will "Crucify" him immediately.

Ariom.

[Galapo]

An appropriate end to it would be that all the involved parties issue an apology if their comments hurt any one's feelings or sensibilities, and agree to be more sensitive with their posts in the future.

I agree. We all need to remember this.

Thanks,
Galapo.

[Wonko the Sane]

I would also like to remind everyone that, with a few exception, like Galapo who is, upside-down and down under as you like , native English speaking, the language used on the board is very often (choose the one appropriate):

• portuglish
• italianish
• germanish
• turglish
• ...

or, more generally "pidgin English" to some extents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin

It is very easy to twist the original meaning of a sentence when attempting to express it in a foreign language, and I often see absolutely "plain" sentences written in such a way that I need to re-read them several times to understand (hopefully) their meaning, expecially when they are short sentences.

When a remark or a reply is even vaguely critical, the "lost in translation" part may well assume, to the eyes of the other member, a meaning much "stronger" than intended, or even completely unlike what the OP wanted to express.

There is also the problem of "false pairs", that at least in latin languages like portuguese and italian, often creates a distorted perception of English.

I'll just throw in a very plain and innocent example, Peter (psc) often uses the word "constellation":
http://www.thefreedi...m/constellation
with the meaning of "setup" or "configuration" (meaning 4 in the above) and I invariably assume that he is talking about stars and planets at first read (meanings 1 and 2 in the above).

As I already expressed several times I believe that very often misunderstandings are started by too laconic sentences that can be interpreted the wrong way or by missing informations that another person may assume being different from what they really are.

Being completely outside the LiveXP and more generally Winbuilder scripting scene, I find that the post by patsch that originated it all was missing many of the needed elements to be objectively replied to:
http://homepages.tes...ard-litany.html

Both the replies by Galapo and Lancelot are given on the base of assumptions on the missing information:

• Galapo assumed that, since an avifile.dl_ is not existing in the source the suggestion by patsch was pointless, wrong or both
• Lancelot assumed that, since the .script worked for him on several sources under LiveXP, patsch was using the .script in some other project

patsch did not specify:

• what the problem was that he thought could be resolved by changing that line
• what "constellation" he was using

I am pretty sure that if that info had been given, the thread would have taken a completely different turn.

Very often giving more details helps in avoiding misunderstadings.


Wonko

[patsch]

I am pretty sure that if that info had been given, the thread would have taken a completely different turn.

Very often giving more details helps in avoiding misunderstadings.

Yes , it could have been more detailed, I know that now (and I will do it in future, I think I learnt from that), but why not aksing for further informations and details? That is the point ... in every project if there are problems and questions of endusers that are posted, all people that want to help ask further questions
to isolate the problem or point in one direction (as Galapo did in my case). But not Lancelot (as mentioned in my previous posts, I'll not repeat them here) ... I'm deeply saddened if this is the the right interpersonal interaction in a winbuilder community that lives from the help of every member (that is my personal opinion)

And the linguistic barrier you pointed to ... I think there were no such barriers neither in the posts of Lancelot nor in my posts

And Wonko : please post nothing more so that I infract my wish not to post anymore in this thread