Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Graf" data-source="post: 4477704" data-attributes="member: 3087">If this would satisfy you... it's already in the setting.From the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/The_Transitive_Isles#The_Near_Lands" target="_blank">main setting page</a>.From the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/L4W:The_Near_Lands#The_Savage_Lands" target="_blank">Near Lands</a>It's also on the wiki, under <a href="http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/The_Transitive_Isles#Daunton:_The_Main_Isle" target="_blank">Daunton</a>.It's not in bold, but I'm not sure how I feel about the statement that it's buried on "some old thread with goblin king".You knew about it. Because you've repeatedly posted about it  <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/238176-discussion-lew-4th-edition-14.html#post4416618" target="_blank">here</a> (in favor of a big central mainland) and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/239580-poll-transitive-isles-setting-proposal.html#post4444957" target="_blank">here</a> (when you proposed TI be re-sized) and in each case I've responded to you.It's was also specifically brought up and discussed and resolved (in the sense that everyone participating on the thread <a href="http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php?title=L4W:PC:Hravoth_Kortaga_%28garyh%29&action=edit&oldid=6281" target="_blank">seemed satisfied</a>) on the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/239580-poll-transitive-isles-setting-proposal.html" target="_blank">Transitive Isles Proposal Thread</a>. (Easiest place to start is here when <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/238692-proposal-transitive-isles-2.html#post4435936" target="_blank">Gary says he thinks it should be 1000 miles</a>)In fact, that thread addressed your primary complaint. Or at least the specific thing you've asked for.Gary and cov and I spent a a lot of effort dealing with this and resolved it as explained <a href="http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/L4W:Transitive_Isles:Design#Modularity_and_Elements_Roles:_An_Example_of_Finding_a_Place_for_an_Idea" target="_blank">(in exaustive detail) here</a>. (We ultimately did a lot of it over email but that "exhaustive detail" link covers the issues, the content of the changes and the final result).We created a whole <a href="http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/L4W:The_Near_Lands#The_Savage_Lands" target="_blank">new zone</a>, we sprinkled <a href="http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/L4W:Daunton#Arga_the_Black" target="_blank">little tidbits</a> throughout the wiki...Could the wiki be better... absolutely... (it sucks, every time I look at it I feel pain) but it's not like this hasn't been talked about and addressed at length.[d]--[/d]Since I always argued against the desire to have a central zone... I'm not sure how you got the impression it would support the creation of one.I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that modular meant "every DM can contribute without limit in the manner that they wish". It's more about giving everyone, collectively the ability to contribute equally without one person, who happens to be first, or the most aggressive or possess some other arbitrary attribute, getting to "take up the best real estate" (so to speak).I've tried to articulate it under <a href="http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/L4W:Transitive_Isles:Design#Modular" target="_blank">modularity</a> on the wiki.[d]--[/d]You say bug, I say feature.You want to have a temporary camp of Eladrin. Great!You want to have something big and permanent that changes the setting.... it's sudden appearance is supposed to stretch credulity. At the very center of the setting, the spot that everyone shares, it's hard for one person to make big changes.It helps judges by making it very clear what will and won't fit. You may not like inland empires, but what if I want one? Why can you have thousands of miles of warring tribes and villages but I can't have an empire?Why's my idea "less good" than yours?If there is a simple, easy to understand reason why you can't park something setting-changing on top of Daunton (i.e. it wouldn't fit) it's a lot easier than a judge having to say: 7 villages is fine... but 15 (or 25) is too many.[d]--[/d]I'm really not sure how to respond.We've been going back and forth and back and forth for literally months on this. It was, probably, the most contentious issue of the debate. I'm sorry if you're surprised, but I don't think that my response is some kind of aberrance.I do apologize for my tone. Which is often unproductive. I can't really justify it. It's a bad habit. If it's any consolation you are not alone in disliking it. I don't think it's appropriate (once I've cooled down) and I can assure you that the other judges have pointedly brought it up as well. It's one of my many failings. I do try to self monitor, but, especially when I feel that we've discussed and worked on an issue at tremendous effort I tend to react poorly when I feel someone esays "I don't like the end result, lets do the whole thing over again".You've made tremendous contributions to the setting too. You made Daunton, the mayor, old vic, Allaria, the Hobgoblin Empire and lots of other stuff I've probably forgotten.And you're running a great game and you've been a big contributor as a judge.I'm glad to be gaming with you and having a great time. But I want us (the community, which includes both you and me) to come to some sort of understanding this time. I'm tired of having it come up again every two or three weeks.I've talked a lot. Why don't you suggest how you think we should proceed?</blockquote>

Verification