Rules Edit

[Matreya]

Just wanted to note that there is an edit necessary in the rules.

http://starwarsrp.net/page/articles.html/_/the-factory/salvaging-rules-r41

Within these, it clearly states, more than once, that the salvaging of an older submission negates dev thread - as they count towards it. After submitting a salvaged item I was notified that the rules posted were not correct.

It will still not only need dev, but dev for the restricted materieals themselves as well. Were devs required for the item itself, ie the combination, it wouldnt be so bad, but it was explicitly said that the materials needed the dev alongside the rest.

Hence an edit being needed.

 

[Darth Assimilus]

What? Ive salvaged items over and over again.

 

[Julius Sedaire]

...... I don't see the issue? You're also not reporting what the FJ said, repeatedly, but what you decided to take from it....

 

[Ellie Mors]

Just wanted to note that there is an edit necessary in the rules.

http://starwarsrp.net/page/articles.html/_/the-factory/salvaging-rules-r41

Within these, it clearly states, more than once, that the salvaging of an older submission negates dev thread - as they count towards it. After submitting a salvaged item I was notified that the rules posted were not correct.

It will still not only need dev, but dev for the restricted materieals themselves as well. Were devs required for the item itself, ie the combination, it wouldnt be so bad, but it was explicitly said that the materials needed the dev alongside the rest.

Hence an edit being needed.

?

Salvaging a submission which has proper development done for a submission does not require further development for those restricted materials in the new submission unless new restricted materials are being added to the submission.

It does not negate all necessary development, it only acts to replace the necessity to do development for the restricted materials which were already developed once prior.

 

[Tefka]

It will still not only need dev, but dev for the restricted materieals themselves as well.

5. The salvaged submission must be linked in the new submission and will serve the function of the required development thread for the restricted material.

You're going about this entirely wrong. You're aware the rules are correct, you're only stating that they need to be changed because someone 'corrected' you about them. That doesn't make them right, just contact an RPJ/Admin for clarification

Link me the post or name the RPJ / FJ that contradicts this rule. This rule can not be any clearer.

 

[Matreya]

...... I don't see the issue? You're also not reporting what the FJ said, repeatedly, but what you decided to take from it....

Because this was not intended to get anyone in a spotlight, rather to bring it to attention that there was misunderstandings, or that the rule had been incorrect.

?

Salvaging a submission which has proper development done for a submission does not require further development for those restricted materials in the new submission unless new restricted materials are being added to the submission.

It does not negate all necessary development, it only acts to replace the necessity to do development for the restricted materials which were already developed once prior.

Exactly. I believe, say, a dev making said item or something of the sorts is more than capable of being requested. The issue was more demanded dev specially for the restricted materials themselves. This was the problem.

5. The salvaged submission must be linked in the new submission and will serve the function of the required development thread for the restricted material.

You're going about this entirely wrong. You're aware the rules are correct, you're only stating that they need to be changed because someone 'corrected' you about them. That doesn't make them right, just contact an RPJ/Admin for clarification

Link me the post or name the RPJ / FJ that contradicts this rule. This rule can not be any clearer.

According to your comment in reiterating the rule being the proper statement, I was not incorrect. I explained, and quoted the very same you did, and was told that no, that wasnt the right idea. That it was still needing more for the materials etcetera.



Thanks everyone for the opinions/comments.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Because this was not intended to get anyone in a spotlight, rather to bring it to attention that there was misunderstandings, or that the rule had been incorrect.

Wouldn't the best course of action, in this case, be to PM an Administrator?

 

[Matreya]

An admin was the one whom finally made me post this. I was told, despite the quoting, that I was incorrect.

Hence my believing I could have been misreading, thus needing an edit of the rules.

[member="Braith Achlys"]

 

[Tefka]

According to your comment in reiterating the rule being the proper statement, I was not incorrect. I explained, and quoted the very same you did, and was told that no, that wasnt the right idea. That it was still needing more for the materials etcetera.

You were still wrong in how you went about it. If you waste a Judge's time arguing for 4-5 posts again, I'm just going to deny whatever we walk into to. I don't care what your personal snowflake problem is, you do not argue with Judges - even if they're wrong.

I know that may seem backwards to you, but you have recourse against bad decisions made by judges. Second Chance. Use it.

If I catch you arguing again, I'm going to swoop in and deny everything.