Explanation of Stance on Collaborations
- I don't feel that sharing every detail of your life is needed,
- but when you vanish into the aether for more than a year;
- it isn't often you're welcomed back as if nothing had happened.
- This is the case IRL, so some sort of explanation at the time would have helped.
- A secondary concern I had was that if stuff like this can happen in the past
- (and there's an established history of it taking place)
- that makes a person wary of what could happen in the future.
- I know from watching ZC Development of many cases where people would jump in;
- make a ton of alterations and then vanish again without any word of why.
- Even those who did, it still leaves those who are still working on it in the lurch.
- I've been playing catchup to what you originally made since I started working on this.
- Finding bugs that weren't known, fixing broken scripts,
- discovering entire areas and secrets I had no clue existed.
- If you added even more things then something happened; it would make the entire process even harder.
- Not saying it would happen, but the only basis I have for judging future actions is what has already occurred.
- Whenever you asked me if I wanted to take a break so you could insert the Earthbound stuff,
- I was under the impression that was the only thing you were going to add.
- At that time, I didn't recall any discussion of the gas mask before that.
- The entire reason for even approaching you in the first place was because
- you did a lot more than you said you was going to.
- To me, if you say you're going to do X and then proceed to do X, Y and Z
- without sharing this fact with the rest of the team; then that means it could happen again.
- So I wanted to make clear that acting without agreement could lead to a point
- where one of us wanted something the other did not and this would cause a split.
- I get that it having the gas mask be equippable is important. That really isn't the issue that concerned me.
- The issue is "Could either of us add anything we wanted to the quest, despite the objections of our partner?"
- I never felt that I had the right to add anything which you objected to.
- I know now that some things might have fallen under this category, but I wasn't aware of it at the time.
- I'm not objecting to the idea of the gas mask as an equippable item.
- I couldn't care less either way.
- I'm objecting to the idea that if I had real objections and they don't fit with my partner's view,
- that I will be ignored. Who is to say that something else might be a feature you wished to add
- that to me I would feel it was not negotiable for it to be left out?
- I would be willing to collaborate on your quest going forward and let the gas mask in as you wants.
- But only on one condition.
- Nothing is not negotiable.
- I am mostly willing to negotiate when it come to the things I want to include.
- If you can't do the same, then we can't work together.
- I know that may seem a bit of an oxymoron.
- "Nothing is not negotiable except for the fact that nothing is not negotiable"
- My only concern from the start was "would disagreement about something in the future cause a split?"
- We disagreed about the gas mask.
- While not important, it said to me "Your opinion doesn't matter."
- If I allowed something to go unchallenged, if I just let myself go with the flow
- and do whatever was suggested; then I would no longer have any real say in matters.
- The argument started because I disagreed with your viewpoint. And it escalated from there.
- If something so relatively insignificant as this could lead to a split,
- then perhaps it is best we continue working separately.
- I had to look at it this way.
- "If this is so important that he's willing to split the quest over it,
- then how can I predict whether or not the next thing we disagree about might do the same?"
RAW Paste Data Copied