A discussion brought over from
Troshian Tower:
RoboBob3000 wrote:
Tahnan wrote:
Regardless of which: insofar as the "no changing rooms" policy is there to protect people's high scores, I feel like if an upload needs to be done to fix some rooms because of a patch, that doesn't license changing other, non-broken rooms to remove unintended solutions.
Maybe I'm one of the only ones that thinks so, but I've always believed that the architect should be able to modify high-scorable rooms.
Quick note: My statement above (about not licensing changes to other rooms) was my interpretation of the current policy, not necessarily an expression of the ideal state of affairs.
If an architect already has to power to nullify high scores (by marking any room as unscorable), what's wrong with wiping out scores with the end result of improving the quality of a room? I feel that as a community, we should be more open to the (appropriate!) revision of holds and less concerned about holding onto our #1's. Yes, I know revision is what the Architecture board is for, but there's hardly any way an architect can claim that their expansive hold is 100% bug-free for the holds board.
Well. I think in fact an architect
shouldn't be able to wipe out just any high score. Retroactively marking a room as unhighscorable should, IMHO, only be allowed for rooms that have no high scores--i.e., rooms that genuinely are nonhighscoreable. (Note: an architect can mark whatever room zie likes in advance, as far as I care; that doesn't affect the fairness of things.)
But I have to say that I do still feel that revision of a room shouldn't be allowed. Again, it's a difference between Architecture and Holds: if your work is a work in progress, something that you want to be able to tweak, to occasionally remove an unintended solution or make a room a little harder by adding a few more goblins, it belongs in Architecture. "
Holds"
means "
this is finished"
.
I guess that, as an academic, I think of it roughly the way I think of publishing papers. If you put your paper on the web or otherwise distribute it in manuscript form, you're letting other people see it and respond to it while still making it clear that this is a work in progress, and anything that you claim could change. If someone writes a paper saying "
RoboBob claims, on page 8 of this manuscript, that X"
, and then RoboBob changes the manuscript to remove that, that's the way unpublished manuscripts work.
Once you put your work into a journal, you're saying, "
OK, while my thoughts may change, I'll have to put those changed thoughts into another paper: for this paper, the published content is the final content, and you can respond to it without fear that it will change."
Later authors feel safe in saying "
RoboBob claims, on page 8 of this paper, that X"
, without fear that the paper will be changed to remove claim X. And that's not just because it's on paper and distributed; even if a journal were entirely online, you wouldn't expect any changes to be made. (Except, say, typo fixes, which are the equivalent of the cosmetic, non-high-score-affecting changes that architects are allowed to make.)
So that's the difference: a high score is like a citation. You cite an unpublished paper at your own peril, because the paper could change; we don't save high scores for an Architecture board hold, because the hold could change. We do save them for Holds board holds, and freely cite published papers, because those don't change in such a way to make our citation/high score retroactively invalid.
I'll let someone else extend the analogy to RoboBob's question of wholly revised, "
second edition"
holds...I'm pretty sure I've gone on more than long enough.
mrimer
/dy
