RP 1.10 #0032

[Renegade]

At the end who is PD?
Yes, he have started Rock Patch project in the begining of 2005.

And that is the very point.

But he resigned on 15.09.06 from patch.
This means what he no longer develop and manage it.

That is correct. But that's all it means - nothing more.

the first Rock Patch development period was finished.
The second period of Rock Patch starts with me.
I have different style of manage of project.
Currently I am a one, who is developing and manage a RP status.
Why should I listen PD?
It the same, if someone, yesterday registered on this forum, go and write - "hey, bitch, I don't want Rock Patch name, you must change it".

No, because, as you yourself pointed out: "he have started Rock Patch project in the begining of 2005".

Possible, he want, that I have leaved this project, because he want to code it itself and he want work alone.
If so I won't irritate him, and go out from project.

As you yourself pointed out: "The second period of Rock Patch starts with me. I have different style of manage of project. Currently I am a one, who is developing and manage a RP status." - he just wants you to change the name to reflect this change. Nothing more. Not to take over, not to change your style of code, your to do list, anything. He just wants VK's version of the patch to have a name from VK. Not one associated with pd.

However, a lot of lie on RockPatch:Main now.

Yeah...that's why there are all the links to the respective posts and threads...

1) Page was updated by someone who hate me.
ModEnc should contain information from neutral side.

Three flaws right in the first point...good start!

1. I don't hate you, I hate the way you manage RockPatch and what you turned it into.
   
2. Even if I did hate you, that wouldn't automatically mean the information presented was not neutral
   
3. And you didn't prove the information added is not from a neutral POV (or even wrong) anyway.
   

2)

constant fights over his coding

my coding style? did you see my code? in my opinion it rather good,
except sometimes I add some testing against bad values.

Are you denying people weren't happy about how you randomly changed flag names? Or that you just randomly drop features mid-cycle if you can't fix them? Or that you don't do any bigger bugtests before the release?

3)

t "[He] always test[s] only basic things; [he] assume[s] that other bugs will be found by [the] community."

...while PD rather rarely did a basic tests...
I only said honestly it, while PD have never done it.

Then your coding style must be much worse than you think it is...'cause as far as I remember, pd did not have to release bugfix over bugfix over bugfix version, and neither did people think of his versions as constantly and entirely bugridden.

4)

declared that a bug was only a bug if it actually triggered an Internal Error (which, logically, would have drastically reduced the number of "bugs" RPCE had)

very good trick - delete the end of sentence.
Original:
Bug - when you have IE or feature don't work as declared/described.
If something don't work as you want, this isn't bug.
Example in RP 1.10 - LaserSize tag. This only works if you set IsHouseColor=to yes.
This is because I design it so.
And I wrote about it in help. And I have a stupid "Bug" in BugTracker.

Very good trick - delete the beginning of the sentence.
Original:
"As a response, VK seemed to have planned "RP Project Rules", similar to the ones he uses for ETS, which, among other things, declared that a bug [...]".
I said you planned to do that, not that you did. Major difference. Not to mention that the other phrasing does the same, only covering your butt a little more - as we said back then, if something doesn't work, it doesn't work. No matter if you described how it doesn't work.
But, since I already said those were only plans, and since I linked to the original post (that link was in the part you conveniently cropped), your point is moot, anyway.
If it was a lie counterable by providing the original quote, I countered it myself already, in the very same revision.

5)

but he did post an even stricter set of rules with the release of RP 1.10.

This just for RP 1.10 only - however each line have RP 1.10.

So basically, you're saying that's a lie, but confirm it is true?
Yay for clear argumentation.

6)

he matter was "resolved"

No. This isn't resolved.

Really? Then how come 1.10 was released?

7)

n effort to keep down the negative comments about his work

there you find word "negative"?

Are you denying you wouldn't have tried to outlaw comments if everybody sat there saying "all hail VK, your code is good and we love you"?

trying to prohibit any further discussion of RockPatch

You can discus it with each other.
but don't ask/suggest about RP 1.10 with me.

What, again, was that? "NO COMMENTS ABOUT RP 1.10", in text size 5?

Anyway, what are they supposed to discuss, in complience with your rules?
They cannot complain about it, because that'd involve mentioning bugs, which, according to point #2, is forbidden, and, if the do something forbidden, the report will be ignored and they will be blacklisted.
So they could only comment on the good sides of RP - but "[you] DON'T need any comments about RP 1.10, except a bug reporting." - so they're not allowed to just randomly chit-chat either.
In addition, they're not allowed to write anything about it, if they haven't downloaded and used it - point #4.
But they're not allowed to use it at all, if they're not elite modders - point #6.

So basically, they can only discuss the page if they're elite modders who are totally happy with the patch and found no bug.
...and you're denying you're trying to block out negative commentary?

I add BobingAbout to black list, because he directly ask me.

Yes! Rightly so! A user of the patch asked the creator of the patch something about the patch! DAMN HIM!!! DAMN HIM TO HELL!!!

9)

elite modders

Who here is "elite modders"?

So, basically, you're implying no one here has the skill to count as an elite modder, and therefore, no one is allowed to use the patch and therefore no one is allowed to comment on it?
...and you're denying you're trying to block out any commentary?