2062 active members
  177 are online

Year

19

Day

330

Time

03:21:44

Guest
Login
snewsgnewsmessagegeneralfactioninventorycombatroom
Year 18 Day 177 14:23
Sable Sojo

Hello!

Do I need to be a member of a manufacturing faction after I have initiated re-tooling?

Production has been requested and re-tooling is in progress.. Do I need to be a member for it to actually start production after re-tooling is complete or can I leave?

Thanks


Year 18 Day 177 15:14
You need to be in the factuon to start production.


Year 18 Day 177 15:17
Simkin Dragoneel

You can leave. The start is just the starting of production. You don't need to wait for retooliing to finish for the production to start fine.


____________

Join Faerytail!
SWC VIDEO Tutorials!
Faerytail Do NOT Trade List

q8scw75
Year 18 Day 177 15:20
Sable Sojo

Great! Thanks for the quick response guys.

Cheers


Year 18 Day 177 17:41
SIms, you sure? AFAIK The Operator must still be an active member at the time of actual production starting, and on any "start" of any further queueitem.


Year 18 Day 177 17:46
I believe Sims is correct. Once you are queued up, you are good to go.


____________

"All I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by."
Year 18 Day 177 18:10
Sims is correct. I still have ships starting that I queued months ago and I'm not currently in a production faction.


Year 18 Day 178 6:26
Oh, so it's still a bug. Okay then.


Year 18 Day 178 6:49
Jande Crowly

That bug is on for so long that it became feature :)


Year 18 Day 178 6:50
Kay, how is that a bug?


Year 18 Day 178 7:21
The Operator has to be an active member of the Production Faction.
"The person starting production and the operator must be in the faction that is the manager and have appropriate privileges. (See Privileges)"

There's bug reports open for this - long time open apparently, so it's not surprising that people think it's intended. I don't ultimately care - if it's "now" an intended feature, we should close those bugs and update the Rules pages. If it's not, then the bugs need to be fixed in due course.


Year 18 Day 178 7:36
The "starting production" part of the statement could be interpreted as the queueing up the production. It doesn't explicitly state that that the person starting production must be in the production faction at the time the production actually begins.

Just sayin'...


Year 18 Day 178 8:34
You say "just sayin" as if it's a reasonable interpretation of a Rule that was written in a different context (when what i described was exactly how it worked when the rule was written). You can't interpret a rule written a decade ago as if people wrote it in today's context. The words themselves might be construable in different ways, but the proper interpretation requires consideration of the context at the time of drafting. It wasn't this way when rules were drafted, so no that's not the right interpretation of the Rule.

When the bug was discovered, nobody said it was a feature or intended. It's still a bug unless and until the Admins make a decision calling it a feature (in which case we can update the rules). Whether anybody bothers to "fix" the bug that is decidedly more convenient for producers than the rules, or if anybody bothers to get confirmation that the behaviour is actually an intended Feature, is above my pay grade.


Edited By: Kay Dallben on Year 18 Day 178 8:35
Year 18 Day 178 8:48
Yes, that is exactly what I am "sayin'". It isn't necessary to have a complete historical understanding of when and why a particular rule was written to interpret it. That one statement can reasonably be interpreted to mean that the person who queues up production must be in a production faction at the time that the entities are queued. It does not say that the person must be in the faction at the time that the entity begins production.

The words themselves might be construable in different ways, but the proper interpretation requires consideration of the context at the time of drafting. 

That's a ridiculous expectation considering that none of the rules have a date tag associated with them. How am I to know that the rule you pointed out wasn't updated last year? I've played this game for nearly a decade and the last thing I pay attention to is when rules are changed.


Year 18 Day 178 9:27
I already said the words could be construed in different ways - that's fine, you can be
ignorant or make a limited interpretation based solely on the words - but don't pretend it's wholly reasonable to be ignorant of all context of the rule and still be snide as if it's somehow proof the behaviour is not a bug. Your interpretation of the Rule is wrong, and your position on the importance of context in examining the interpretation of the meaning of a Rule is asinine.


Year 18 Day 178 9:40
In your rush to showcase your superior knowledge of the SWC rules history, you missed my original point. IF a rule can be interpreted to support a current function of the game, then it is reasonable to interpret it that way. If the interpretation is wrong, fine. I have no problem with you pointing that out. But I think you need to turn your level of condescension down a notch or two. It IS possible to have a discussion and a disagreement without calling someone asinine.

My last statement on this is that game rules should be straightforward and should not have to be interpreted within some unknown context, such as when it was written. We're not interpreting the U.S. Constitution here. It's a game.


Year 18 Day 178 9:47
You realize all this condescension is a direct result of you snidely purporting that interpretation as obviously correct (the common meaning of "just saying" when emphasized), and then taking an asinine position (Not you, your position) on how proper that interpretation is and how fine it is to be ignorant.


Year 18 Day 178 11:35
Simkin Dragoneel

I don't remember seeing those bug reports Kay. Been busy as hell though, can you DM me the numbers?

From what I remember the intended function is how I described because in the case of larger production entities, like SY4s, a person would have to remain in that faction for over 4 days during that retool until the actual production starts.

I vaguely remember discussing that with whoever made Production 2.0 but that was a number of years ago.


____________

Join Faerytail!
SWC VIDEO Tutorials!
Faerytail Do NOT Trade List

q8scw75
Year 18 Day 178 12:57
Yeah, no question it's more convenient than either: i) Re-Assigning the Op to someone staying in the faction; or ii) staying in-faction while it retools. I remember having to do that crap a lot, but AFAIK 'active member staying in-faction until production actually starts' is how the Faction Type and Membership requirements are supposed to work to prevent trivializing them. Not my call obviously.

I'll DM you the bug reports. Seems like it's been like this for 3 years, so might as well leave it as is and call it a feature. Run it up the chain, I guess. If that's all fine, i'll dig out my draft Production Rules revamp from years ago and start correcting/clarifying out of date stuff.


Edited By: Kay Dallben on Year 18 Day 178 12:59