| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMovieman: Quote:
(Sorry, I had posted that when CharlieM were posted his)
So in your set up, it would be:
Other Los Angelenos
Character - Actor
Etc
Other Los Angelenos - ESPN Radio Announcers
Actor
Actor
Other Los Angelenos
Character - Actor
Am I reading that right? I wouldn't try to simulate nested dividers like this. I would use the old method for the inner group: Other Los AngelenosCharacter - Actor Etc ESPN Radio Announcer - Actor ESPN Radio Announcer - Actor Character - Actor |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would personally vote no to that as Ken clarified that he meant for us to use group dividers for both types of groups. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I would personally vote no to that as Ken clarified that he meant for us to use group dividers for both types of groups. Has he? I thought he is still waiting for input on the matter of nested dividers. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | He said that in the Rules Committee Forum. What he is still undecided on is how to handle nested groups roles. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
He said that in the Rules Committee Forum. What he is still undecided on is how to handle nested groups roles. And what we see in this thread are not nested group roles? |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
He said that in the Rules Committee Forum. What he is still undecided on is how to handle nested groups roles.
And what we see in this thread are not nested group roles? Then, what d you see?  |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I would personally vote no to that as Ken clarified that he meant for us to use group dividers for both types of groups. I couldn't agree to that. We can't expect people to contribute and vote based on a post that only a certain number of people can see. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I would personally vote no to that as Ken clarified that he meant for us to use group dividers for both types of groups.
I couldn't agree to that. We can't expect people to contribute and vote based on a post that only a certain number of people can see. I wouldn't either but, as I read the rules, clarification wasn't needed. It is unfortunate that Ken did not forsee this problem and allow for nesting dividers, but that doesn't change the rule. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | right... the rules says to use them for group roles. And either way that is a type of group role... so I would vote no to not using the group dividers for all the group roles. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
right... the rules says to use them for group roles. And either way that is a type of group role... so I would vote no to not using the group dividers for all the group roles. But you would turn 2 nested groups into 3 artificial disjoint groups. I can't see how you would conform better to the rules than my proposal. Some work around for the not available nested dividers have to be used anyway. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | you would not be using a group divider for group roles. That right there would be against the rules. So yes I would vote no. It really is as simple as that. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
you would not be using a group divider for group roles. That right there would be against the rules. So yes I would vote no. It really is as simple as that. Should I vote no because you turn 2 groups into 3? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | how you vote on anything is totally up to you. But I do put in every contribution notes that contains nesting groups that I am using Ken's own suggestion on how to handle it until there is an official decision. Not sure what more I could do then that. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
you would not be using a group divider for group roles. That right there would be against the rules. So yes I would vote no. It really is as simple as that.
Should I vote no because you turn 2 groups into 3? You could, though I don't know that I would as he is doing it the way Ken suggested he do it. Edit: I see furry fingers are faster. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|