foundry process revamp

[DiM]

lately i have become more and more annoyed with how the foundry process runs, how the mods make decisions, how some map makers are treated and so on. and i'm not the only one that shares this opinion.

some maps are being slowed down because the mods simply don't show up in those threads or because they come and make requests about things that have already been taken care a long time ago.

other maps are being quenched without profer discussions.

the size issue has been so discussed there's no point in explaining it again.

suggestions for improving the process are either refused without further comments or are simply ignored.

some map makers are treated as if they are being done a favour if they are allowed to create a map.

maps are released without proper testing despite the fact that the foudry requested a testing possibility quite a long time ago.

andy and keyogi spend their time slowing down the process by posting useless requests in various map threads instead of checking up the maps proposed for quenching and making sure everything is perfect before they are put up for live play.

and the problems are even more but i think these will do for now.

what i want here is to stop all the discussions that take place around the foundry and concentrate it all in one place. perhaps we can talk like adults and try to reach a solution. perhaps the mods should lose the "i rule this domain and i piss on your head" attitude and the stubborn map makers should get rid of their "i know what's best" attitude and maybe something good will come out of this.

one simple request let's try to keep a calm discussion and reasonable thinking.


PS: and don't move this thread to general discussion or suggestions and stuff because i believe this is a mater best discussed within the foundry limits.

cheers.

[DiM]

4 votes and no comments. come on people don't be shy nobofy is going to bite you.

i would especially like to hear the arguements of the person that voted the foundry process is perfect and can't be further improved.

[gimil]

I dont kow where to start.

1. Clear favouritism

2. The general stupidity around the size discussion

3. The increase in buracracy

4. Decease in map makers freedom.

5. The foundry wide slow down.

to name but a few

[sully800]

I am one who is unhappy with the current foundry process as well.

I would like to see a system implemented where there is an idea section (already exists). Then a layout section where the basics of the map are laid out and critiqued. This part would focus on game play only because the biggest problem is that people become concerned with graphics far too early. After a map gets approval from the foundry under game play it goes to a testing area where a limited number of people can play the map and see how things work on it. If there are obvious problems it gets rejected back to game play, if not it moves onto final forge which would solely be concerned with graphics. Once the graphics of the map are approved it would go to a quenching stage.

Overall I think some people put a lot of effort into graphics and then are reluctant to change their map's game play because the graphics are very hard to fix after a certain point. We now have some very advanced maps in terms of game play and graphics, and I think they need to be sorted individually. The quality in the foundry has advanced drastically since the foundry process was first established.

And perhaps these changes would help to fix what DiM sees as an inequality in the way cartographers are treated.

[gimil]

I am one who is unhappy with the current foundry process as well.

I would like to see a system implemented where there is an idea section (already exists). Then a layout section where the basics of the map are laid out and critiqued. This part would focus on game play only because the biggest problem is that people become concerned with graphics far too early. After a map gets approval from the foundry under game play it goes to a testing area where a limited number of people can play the map and see how things work on it. If there are obvious problems it gets rejected back to game play, if not it moves onto final forge which would solely be concerned with graphics. Once the graphics of the map are approved it would go to a quenching stage.

Overall I think some people put a lot of effort into graphics and then are reluctant to change their map's game play because the graphics are very hard to fix after a certain point. We now have some very advanced maps in terms of game play and graphics, and I think they need to be sorted individually. The quality in the foundry has advanced drastically since the foundry process was first established.

And perhaps these changes would help to fix what DiM sees as an inequality in the way cartographers are treated.

Nice input sully but the current system would work IF it was run the way its suppose to be. Rigt now it seems that the power that be is bending the rules for some and strenghening them for others when it comes to quenching. Ans the whole map size disscussion is done by mods behind doors where the rest of the community dont see whats happeing. For all we know there isnt a clear balanced debate. But right now im undr hte impression the mods are having a discussion and then lack picks his idea anyway.

[DiM]

I am one who is unhappy with the current foundry process as well.

I would like to see a system implemented where there is an idea section (already exists). Then a layout section where the basics of the map are laid out and critiqued. This part would focus on game play only because the biggest problem is that people become concerned with graphics far too early. After a map gets approval from the foundry under game play it goes to a testing area where a limited number of people can play the map and see how things work on it. If there are obvious problems it gets rejected back to game play, if not it moves onto final forge which would solely be concerned with graphics. Once the graphics of the map are approved it would go to a quenching stage.

Overall I think some people put a lot of effort into graphics and then are reluctant to change their map's game play because the graphics are very hard to fix after a certain point. We now have some very advanced maps in terms of game play and graphics, and I think they need to be sorted individually. The quality in the foundry has advanced drastically since the foundry process was first established.

And perhaps these changes would help to fix what DiM sees as an inequality in the way cartographers are treated.

i perfectly agree with everything you say. except for the inequty issue.
as long as 2 people (andy and keyogi) will have absolute power despite what the foundry says there will be favouritism case. take a look at the most recent case displayed in the portugal map thread.
wm gets a quench 32 minutes after he posts his final version and gimil is asked something stupid by keyogi 4 days after he displays his final version. and 13 days later there's still no sign of a quench thus taking the total final forge time to almost 2 months.

[oaktown]

it has been my observation that this concern comes up every few months or so, the system get tweaked, things are smoother, and then a few months later this comes up again.

I always think things can be improved. But before we can enter into any serious discussion about how the foundry can be improved we all have to agree that:
1. everybody has a different idea of what makes a good map, thus...
2. the forces that get maps approved will always be as subjective as they are objective, which means that...
3. no single system will make everybody happy, which we have to learn to live with because...
4. this is not a democracy, so therefor...
5. there will always be one or more voices with more influence than the rest of us.

[reverend_kyle]

Option #2 but I think there are other things more important right now.

[Wisse]

what about more mods, that could help a bit... (the late foudnry process of portugal for example )

[Incandenza]

Though I'm not a cartographer, I'm pretty much a daily lurker, and I see a couple of issues.

One is the size thing. Now, I understand the rationale that was laid out by lack and andy and twill, but I'm not sure it's very fair. The site isn't designed with people using dial-up in mind, is it? Or at least, there are elements on the site (specifically speed games) that simply won't work with dial-up. So why should the maps strictly cater to the people with the smallest screens? Now, I'm one of those people with small screens (12" ibook), but I don't think it's right that maps that would work perfectly on larger screens should have to be bastardized to work on mine (supermax springs to mind). There should be some sort of ordering system where maps can be categorized as optimized to a particular resolution (like I believe dim suggested some time ago). Will I personally play these theoretical giant maps? Probably not. But then again, if I were on dial-up, I wouldn't insist that speed games be taken off the site.

My other major beef is that maps are not extensively play-tested before going live. Both Pearl Harbor and AoM launched with extensive xml issues, and while said issues were wrapped up in a matter of hours and days, such issues would have been sidestepped if the maps had been play-tested a dozen or so times by people that know what they're doing and will test every last aspect of a given map before actual paying customers are playing for points on them. Imagine how maddening that would be, playing on a brand-new map, you have the win lined up, but you get derailed by an xml flaw. One thing I'd like to stress is that I'm NOT heaping shit on the cartographers and xml folks. I give them all high praise for creating the maps in the first place and being on the bounce fixing problems. But things fall through the cracks and get overlooked, and a shakedown period for maps would alleviate that.

One small thing I would recommend is some better advertising for the foundry itself. A vanishingly small percentage of active players actually visit the foundry, a percentage that's dwarfed by the numbers of complaints and suggestions that come in when a map launches. I suppose this is to be expected, given the length of some threads and the hostile reactions casual foundry readers face when they make a suggestion that had been shouted down 20 pages before. But if a means were to be found (perhaps with a small banner on the my games page) to encourage people to visit the foundry and "see what's in development", it might not be a bad idea. However, trolls should be dealt with harshly, as the foundry (and the maps that it vomits forth) is one of the things that makes CC great.

$0.02

[hulmey]

People who dont visit the foundr do just that because they have no interest at all in the foundry!! Putting up banners is just silly and of no need whatso ever.

I think better maps are being produced not because the Map foundry is working as some people might say but because of the increase in players to CC thus the increase in talented players with map making skills. Anybody agree?

I also believe map makers have had a harder time since Keyogi was made moderator. This however may be because he has been ordered to by the powers that be or it could just be his personal style!!

On a final note i also believe a few map makers think that they know best and dont really want the input of foundry members up to a certain point of course.

On a final note lets just leave the map foundry as it is and move

[cairnswk]

As it is my map that stuffed up so badly with the xml, i'd support any strategy to improve the process of the foundry especially with support for the beta and xml testing stage.

[hulmey]

To be fair cairns your map Pearl Harbour is one of the most complicated maps out there so its too be expected...

Maybe more attention should be given to such maps before launching!!

[gimil]

People who dont visit the foundr do just that because they have no interest at all in the foundry!! Putting up banners is just silly and of no need whatso ever.

incorrect. A very small amount of the active gamers acctually visit the forum in general. This means they are not aware of the foundrys existance. If it was made aware to them that there was a section of hte site dedicated to map production it may convince more players to leave input

[WidowMakers]

i perfectly agree with everything you say. except for the inequty issue.
as long as 2 people (andy and keyogi) will have absolute power despite what the foundry says there will be favouritism case. take a look at the most recent case displayed in the portugal map thread.
wm gets a quench 32 minutes after he posts his final version and gimil is asked something stupid by keyogi 4 days after he displays his final version. and 13 days later there's still no sign of a quench thus taking the total final forge time to almost 2 months.

Again I will post that I did not get my map quenched in 32 minutes. See other thread here.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 305#689305

The last comment was 3.5 days earlier. Plus the map was a revamp and most of the problems or issues with maps currently have been XML issues and potential gameplay issues.

Now on to suggestions for better map making:
1) We need a map beta test site or something.
2) As much as I like graphics, everyone making and helping with maps need to be aware of gameplay and focus on that first.

[Coleman]

I honestly think that process was running faster before Keyogi was a moderator, so I kind of agree with hulmey in a darker way, not really a way to say that without being mean. Anyway, that would indicate more moderators is not the answer, sorry Wisse. I don't see how more moderators would change anything actually.

The only way a new moderator would be helpful at all is if we had an xml specific moderator. I don't think the current moderators even look at xml, or if they do that they don't really really look at it. A xml moderator would at least be able to enforce that the xml is looked at and discussed before a map is quenched. I think the Pearl Harbor case was unavoidable however, as it doesn't appear a lot of the new xml was properly implemented and tested. In fact I'm not sure it was tested at all.

I agree with WidowMakers. We need a public test site with volunteers to test things. Like after quenching, a map goes into the test site first for a week and if there are problems we deal with it then.

I think we also need Foundry News of some sort. I may try to start this. I have no idea what is going on in most of the final forge maps. I think if more people knew the state of things then everything would be running much smoother. A single topic to go look at to find that may be helpful. Like maybe once a week, or just whenever the news person has time to throw something together.

[zim]

I haven't actively been involved in map making for a while but have been lurking in the foundry the last few months and I'm never shy about throwing in my $0.02...

1. The beta testing site would be a big improvement particularly for the more complex maps like Pearl Harbour that are now being built. The tests should encompass both bugs and where required playability/balance tweaks. The beta testers should include Foundry regulars but also 'normal' CC players to test if legends are clear, etc., to players who haven't been following the development of a map.

2. "Opinion" questions inevitably arise in the map creation process, things like should the there be an Antarctica continent bonus in W 2.1. Where these are (mainly) subjective I'd like to see an easier ability to poll the forum. I'm NOT suggesting turning things into a democracy just want to provide map makers with more input into what should be (primarily) their decision.

3. Decision making. Fundamentally the map maker should make the decision on these opinion/design questions as long as s/he is within the rules and the map meets the quality standards of the site. With that being said one of things that seems to have gone down hill is the level of debate and discussion on these issues particularly play ability/balance questions. While the decision should be the map makers they have an obligation to explain to the community the reason for their decisions and engage in the debate with an open mind. If you want to create your cartographic masterpiece without community involvement you're in the wrong place.

4. Speed. While I always rush to play each new map the moment they are quenched speed shouldn't be the goal of the foundry process. I've blocked out the memory of how many iterations I went through on W2.0 and then the W2.1 tweaks but then end product was better for it. I know map makers are volunteers and that we all want to get playing on our creations but I think slower is better.

5. Lack of beer. I think some of the challenges in the process are the inevitable outcome of text only forum debates. People tend to rub each other the wrong way over time when they can't see the arched eyebrow or the crooked smile that goes with a particular comment. Since we can't get together for a beer, hash it out and move on I'd suggest that mods, map makers and foundry visitors all need to be extra polite and crystal clear in their foundry comments. A little civility goes a long way in these kinds of things.

Cheers,

Zim

[DiM]

it has been my observation that this concern comes up every few months or so, the system get tweaked, things are smoother, and then a few months later this comes up again.

I always think things can be improved. But before we can enter into any serious discussion about how the foundry can be improved we all have to agree that:
1. everybody has a different idea of what makes a good map, thus...
2. the forces that get maps approved will always be as subjective as they are objective, which means that...
3. no single system will make everybody happy, which we have to learn to live with because...
4. this is not a democracy, so therefor...
5. there will always be one or more voices with more influence than the rest of us.

yes everybody has a different idea but is it normal that all those ideas be ignored and just 2 (andy+keyogi) be taken into consideration? is it normal to have 10-20 people say a border is fine but then keyogi comes and says he doesn't like it and it MUST be changed? NO. why all maps must be created as andy or keyogi envision them? what makes their opinion better than everybody else's?

why isn't this a democracy? and while i agree even if it were a democracy we would still have unsatisfied people their number would probably be much lower. at this point the poll shows just 2 out of 31 consider the foundry process a good one. perhaps if we had a democracy the number of happy voters would be much greater.

[Qwert]

DiM wrote:
i perfectly agree with everything you say. except for the inequty issue.
as long as 2 people (andy and keyogi) will have absolute power despite what the foundry says there will be favouritism case. take a look at the most recent case displayed in the portugal map thread.

I have similar problem in WWII iwo jima(still not solve),most of foundry people who participiated on making map satisfy with borders,and only Andy and Keyogi stoping map to be quenched,and all mine explanation he refuse to apply. These problem i see also in D-Day omaha,when Keyogu try to put hes word over very large numbers of foundry member who see that map is finish.
Mine question is who see better -2 man or 22 man?[/quote]

[DiM]

Though I'm not a cartographer, I'm pretty much a daily lurker, and I see a couple of issues.

One is the size thing. Now, I understand the rationale that was laid out by lack and andy and twill, but I'm not sure it's very fair. The site isn't designed with people using dial-up in mind, is it? Or at least, there are elements on the site (specifically speed games) that simply won't work with dial-up. So why should the maps strictly cater to the people with the smallest screens? Now, I'm one of those people with small screens (12" ibook), but I don't think it's right that maps that would work perfectly on larger screens should have to be bastardized to work on mine (supermax springs to mind). There should be some sort of ordering system where maps can be categorized as optimized to a particular resolution (like I believe dim suggested some time ago). Will I personally play these theoretical giant maps? Probably not. But then again, if I were on dial-up, I wouldn't insist that speed games be taken off the site.

very well put. the mods keep insisting people don't want to scroll and so the size limits should remain the same. well, look at all the polls made on this subject. people DON'T care about scrolling as long as the map is good.

My other major beef is that maps are not extensively play-tested before going live. Both Pearl Harbor and AoM launched with extensive xml issues, and while said issues were wrapped up in a matter of hours and days, such issues would have been sidestepped if the maps had been play-tested a dozen or so times by people that know what they're doing and will test every last aspect of a given map before actual paying customers are playing for points on them. Imagine how maddening that would be, playing on a brand-new map, you have the win lined up, but you get derailed by an xml flaw. One thing I'd like to stress is that I'm NOT heaping shit on the cartographers and xml folks. I give them all high praise for creating the maps in the first place and being on the bounce fixing problems. But things fall through the cracks and get overlooked, and a shakedown period for maps would alleviate that.

yes. the play testing area is a must. ever since i joined this site. i don't think i've seen more than 3 maps quenched to have a perfect xml.

One small thing I would recommend is some better advertising for the foundry itself. A vanishingly small percentage of active players actually visit the foundry, a percentage that's dwarfed by the numbers of complaints and suggestions that come in when a map launches. I suppose this is to be expected, given the length of some threads and the hostile reactions casual foundry readers face when they make a suggestion that had been shouted down 20 pages before. But if a means were to be found (perhaps with a small banner on the my games page) to encourage people to visit the foundry and "see what's in development", it might not be a bad idea. However, trolls should be dealt with harshly, as the foundry (and the maps that it vomits forth) is one of the things that makes CC great.

$0.02

i'm not sure if advertising is really needed. most maps receive lots of feedback from the usual foundry members and that feedback is sufficient in my opinion. but i wouldn't say no to a fresh batch of open minds to come and share their opinion as long as they do it properly and as long as the mods take care of the foundry and prevent spamming.

[DiM]

People who dont visit the foundr do just that because they have no interest at all in the foundry!! Putting up banners is just silly and of no need whatso ever.

not banners but maybe some other way of making the foundry known could be useful as long as the mods keep the foundry smooth by preventing spam and moving/deleting unwanted threads. an outside person would bring a fresh objective opinion and that's always welcome.

I think better maps are being produced not because the Map foundry is working as some people might say but because of the increase in players to CC thus the increase in talented players with map making skills. Anybody agree?

if anything this current foundry process is slowing down map making not making it better. and yes the foundry got a few fresh young guns with graphic skills and ideas that's why it's been so productive. but it could be even better a lot better.

I also believe map makers have had a harder time since Keyogi was made moderator. This however may be because he has been ordered to by the powers that be or it could just be his personal style!!

i tend to lean towards personal style. i don't think lack came and told keyogi to slow down a map or be rude to a map maker.

On a final note i also believe a few map makers think that they know best and dont really want the input of foundry members up to a certain point of course.

yes that's also true some map makers (me included) are also stubborn and are sometimes reluctant to changes. perhaps because they are the ones that designed the map and know it inside out perhaps they tested it with their friends or simply perhaps they're egotistical bastards

no matter what the reason is it would all become very simple with a play testing area. there it would be proven if a map maker is right or not if his stubbornness in changing the gameplay is justified or not.

On a final note lets just leave the map foundry as it is and move

2 final notes?
why leave it as it is? it's going nowhere or even worse it could be going downwards

[DiM]

i perfectly agree with everything you say. except for the inequty issue.
as long as 2 people (andy and keyogi) will have absolute power despite what the foundry says there will be favouritism case. take a look at the most recent case displayed in the portugal map thread.
wm gets a quench 32 minutes after he posts his final version and gimil is asked something stupid by keyogi 4 days after he displays his final version. and 13 days later there's still no sign of a quench thus taking the total final forge time to almost 2 months.

Again I will post that I did not get my map quenched in 32 minutes. See other thread here.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 305#689305

The last comment was 3.5 days earlier. Plus the map was a revamp and most of the problems or issues with maps currently have been XML issues and potential gameplay issues.

just as i specified in the portugal thread WM the fact is your indochina revamp went smoothly (as it should have been) but other maps are slowed down for no specific reason. actually the reasons are well known just unspoken.
anyway i pointed in that thread a lot of tiny bits and suggestions that could have been implemented in your map. like centering the army numbers relative to the territory names, or making the names not touch the borders. reasonable things that are asked around the foundry and yet somehow they weren't in your indochina revamp. if keyogi wanted to slow you down he could have done it easily just like he does on other threads. go back to portugal and read the week by week slowdown process i made for your map.

Now on to suggestions for better map making:
1) We need a map beta test site or something.
2) As much as I like graphics, everyone making and helping with maps need to be aware of gameplay and focus on that first.

1. absolutely yes.
2. same here.

[DiM]

I honestly think that process was running faster before Keyogi was a moderator, so I kind of agree with hulmey in a darker way, not really a way to say that without being mean. Anyway, that would indicate more moderators is not the answer, sorry Wisse. I don't see how more moderators would change anything actually.

totally true. i much preferred keyogi when he was a map maker than now when he no longer makes maps but somehow feels the need to control everything that is created.

The only way a new moderator would be helpful at all is if we had an xml specific moderator. I don't think the current moderators even look at xml, or if they do that they don't really really look at it. A xml moderator would at least be able to enforce that the xml is looked at and discussed before a map is quenched. I think the Pearl Harbor case was unavoidable however, as it doesn't appear a lot of the new xml was properly implemented and tested. In fact I'm not sure it was tested at all.

yes a xml moderator would indeed be very helpful since neither andy or keyogi look on the xml. and i find this strange since both of them are in charge with quality checking. but it seems they spend more time asking for blurs or for minor movements of pixels instead of doing a xml check which i think is far more important. they don't even update the atlas which i find it odd since that is a sticky where all new comers should get an overview of all maps in production.

I agree with WidowMakers. We need a public test site with volunteers to test things. Like after quenching, a map goes into the test site first for a week and if there are problems we deal with it then.

yup. suggested by many people but regrettably turned down or ignored.

I think we also need Foundry News of some sort. I may try to start this. I have no idea what is going on in most of the final forge maps. I think if more people knew the state of things then everything would be running much smoother. A single topic to go look at to find that may be helpful. Like maybe once a week, or just whenever the news person has time to throw something together.

this could be nice and useful something sticky in the general discussion where news about fresh new ideas and forges and quenches could be posted.
perhaps even make a developmental atlas and sticky it in the general discussion forum. but instead of simple links to the threads there could be a few description lines on the theme of the map the inovations it brings and so on. and individual news for each map. like: "new poll on bonuses" or "has reached final forge"

[DiM]

I haven't actively been involved in map making for a while but have been lurking in the foundry the last few months and I'm never shy about throwing in my $0.02...

we don't need shy people we need people that have the guts to say their opinion and are willing to help improve things. so it seems you fit the spot nicely

1. The beta testing site would be a big improvement particularly for the more complex maps like Pearl Harbour that are now being built. The tests should encompass both bugs and where required playability/balance tweaks. The beta testers should include Foundry regulars but also 'normal' CC players to test if legends are clear, etc., to players who haven't been following the development of a map.

as previously said a beta testing facility has been requested many times. right after AoM was quenched i believe it was yeti_c or coleman that posted in the suggestions forum asking for such a thing. nothing happened since then and that was months ago.

2. "Opinion" questions inevitably arise in the map creation process, things like should the there be an Antarctica continent bonus in W 2.1. Where these are (mainly) subjective I'd like to see an easier ability to poll the forum. I'm NOT suggesting turning things into a democracy just want to provide map makers with more input into what should be (primarily) their decision.

some map makers play test their creations and so they have a clear thought on how the gameplay should be. that doesn't mean they are always right but when the map maker that tested it in private along with 20 more people say the gamplay is fine and then keyogi comes and says otherwise and insists it should be done his way then we have a problem. a problem where a man thinks he's above all and where the easiest solution would be a testing facility.

3. Decision making. Fundamentally the map maker should make the decision on these opinion/design questions as long as s/he is within the rules and the map meets the quality standards of the site. With that being said one of things that seems to have gone down hill is the level of debate and discussion on these issues particularly play ability/balance questions. While the decision should be the map makers they have an obligation to explain to the community the reason for their decisions and engage in the debate with an open mind. If you want to create your cartographic masterpiece without community involvement you're in the wrong place.

it's clearly written in the rules that map makers should meet the standards and attempt to implement any change suggested or offer a decent explanation in case they refuse. despite these rules when andy or keyogi ask for something they insist on it being done the way they want to despite all the reasons provided by the map maker despite the dozens of people backing up the map maker. that's bad.

4. Speed. While I always rush to play each new map the moment they are quenched speed shouldn't be the goal of the foundry process. I've blocked out the memory of how many iterations I went through on W2.0 and then the W2.1 tweaks but then end product was better for it. I know map makers are volunteers and that we all want to get playing on our creations but I think slower is better.

not speed but productivity. at this point maps sit and wait for a mod to look at them. in my AoM thread at some point i started putting pictures of the village people on the map or making it pink simply because all the requests had been solved and nobody had anymore feedback and they all agreed it was ok. but i lacked something important. a MOD to either give some feedback or move it to the next stage. it's not normal for a map to stay months in production because a mod doesn't feel like visiting it's thread. do you know how many replies keyogi and andy had in the AoM thread? (less than 20) and that includes the final forge and quench messages. less than 20 from 26701 replies.

5. Lack of beer. I think some of the challenges in the process are the inevitable outcome of text only forum debates. People tend to rub each other the wrong way over time when they can't see the arched eyebrow or the crooked smile that goes with a particular comment. Since we can't get together for a beer, hash it out and move on I'd suggest that mods, map makers and foundry visitors all need to be extra polite and crystal clear in their foundry comments. A little civility goes a long way in these kinds of things.

Cheers,

Zim

when a mod tells a map maker "i don't like you and your ways and if you don't like my way then i advise you to leave the foundry and never come back" i'd say the boundaries of common sense and decency have been long broke.

[yeti_c]

DiM - this topic seems to have turned from a useful debate into a personal slanging match against Keyogi (and Andy a bit)...

If you want anything to be done about it - then I suggest you stop with the personal slurs...

FYI - I voted option 2.

C.