Subject: ZScript Modules: A Proposal
Nash wrote:I am actually concerned about how all this fits into a TC/stand-alone workflow.
Simple: It doesn't.
I feel like you guys are busying themselves coming up with standards and regulations and so on and so forth to avoid actually having to write stuff using ZScript. How's HOERS or whatever it was coming along, anyway?
Alright - so here I go full moderator mode, but this comes with a few caveats... here we go...
This post has been reported for trolling. After careful consideration, I have closed the report on this post - but please understand where I am coming from in saying what I am about to say, here.
On one hand I will say that I can see the reason for the report. It's not a nicely worded post, but not truly hostile from what I can see, and it is a valid point and a real concern. I can see how the HOERS reference seemed like a personal attack, but I don't think it was meant to be an attack. It was a pointed remark about the flaws in this very topic, using a rather embarrassing historical reference to support his point.
I can't speak for Kinsie, but I can tell you what I believe - and what I believe is that I think Kinsie had high hopes for HOERS only to be disappointed when the project didn't actually go anywhere. I think this statement is an expression of frustration at that. I might be wrong, but I think that was the reason for him making the post he did here.
The statement was definitely provoking - I will not deny or question that. I do believe Kinsie crossed the line here, but not by much.
There's definitely more productive ways to express this concern, but despite the issues with how he worded it, this still did it quite effectively, in my opinion. I actually agree with his concern - this (or at least close to this) has been done once before, and that didn't go anywhere. But who knows - the author of this one at least seems a bit dedicated to it, and willing to put some time and effort into it; we'll never know.
I do agree with Kinsie on another point, too, although he didn't directly state it (it seems implied) - the majority of this topic does seem to be a form of bike-shedding and arguing over frivolities at this point that will ultimately doom the project before it even gains any momentum.
@ Kinsie: This has been a problem for you before. You bring up an important concern so I will let this one slide. But you still did it the wrong way - you could have simply said "someone else did this before and that didn't go anywhere." You did not need the pointed question in this. You are on notice that if I see it again, appropriate action will be taken.
Therefore, it is my decision that although poorly worded, the post is an important enough concern to remain the way it is. I am sorry for upsetting anyone for not truly taking sides with this report - but this is how I feel about it.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that for now.