Talk:Random: Difference between revisions
DavidFisher (talk | contribs) m (Response to comment from Maga) |
DavidFisher (talk | contribs) m (Minor fix) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
With regard to the new Cautions section: what with impartiality and everything, I think that theory articles made for the wiki should avoid explicitly saying "Don't Do This", particularly in very generalised statements. I'd much prefer if this sort of consideration was rephrased in terms of 'This behaviour ''can'' have this-and-this negative effect, and here is why.' I'd like to rephrase the Cautions section a bit and move its points into Disadvantages. I'm aware this is a bit nitpicky, but I think it's an important distinction. -- [[User:Maga|Maga]] 19:20, 5 Dec 2005 (Central Standard Time) | With regard to the new Cautions section: what with impartiality and everything, I think that theory articles made for the wiki should avoid explicitly saying "Don't Do This", particularly in very generalised statements. I'd much prefer if this sort of consideration was rephrased in terms of 'This behaviour ''can'' have this-and-this negative effect, and here is why.' I'd like to rephrase the Cautions section a bit and move its points into Disadvantages. I'm aware this is a bit nitpicky, but I think it's an important distinction. -- [[User:Maga|Maga]] 19:20, 5 Dec 2005 (Central Standard Time) | ||
Well, the two examples I gave are recognised as things not to do in a game (in reviews / newsgroup comments) rather than disadvantages of randomness per se, so I don't think they belong in the Disadvantages section ... maybe they need some explicit justification about why they are classified as bad ? I think it is way more helpful to include lessons learned from past IF design than to avoid any judgements at all - if a statement provokes a reaction (eg. "mazes are bad !") then a discussion on the wiki page may be more helpful than removing that statement. -- [[User:DavidFisher|David Fisher]] 13:50, 06 Dec 2005 (EST / Sydney Time) | Well, the two examples I gave are recognised as things not to do in a game (in reviews / newsgroup comments) rather than disadvantages of randomness per se, so I don't think they belong in the Disadvantages section ... maybe they need some explicit justification about why they are classified as bad ? I think it is way more helpful to include lessons learned from past IF design than to avoid any judgements at all - if a statement provokes a reaction (eg. "mazes are bad !") then a discussion on the wiki page may be more helpful than removing that statement completely. -- [[User:DavidFisher|David Fisher]] 13:50, 06 Dec 2005 (EST / Sydney Time) | ||
Revision as of 02:54, 6 December 2005
With regard to the new Cautions section: what with impartiality and everything, I think that theory articles made for the wiki should avoid explicitly saying "Don't Do This", particularly in very generalised statements. I'd much prefer if this sort of consideration was rephrased in terms of 'This behaviour can have this-and-this negative effect, and here is why.' I'd like to rephrase the Cautions section a bit and move its points into Disadvantages. I'm aware this is a bit nitpicky, but I think it's an important distinction. -- Maga 19:20, 5 Dec 2005 (Central Standard Time)
Well, the two examples I gave are recognised as things not to do in a game (in reviews / newsgroup comments) rather than disadvantages of randomness per se, so I don't think they belong in the Disadvantages section ... maybe they need some explicit justification about why they are classified as bad ? I think it is way more helpful to include lessons learned from past IF design than to avoid any judgements at all - if a statement provokes a reaction (eg. "mazes are bad !") then a discussion on the wiki page may be more helpful than removing that statement completely. -- David Fisher 13:50, 06 Dec 2005 (EST / Sydney Time)