MAIL ISSUE POLL: Position needed on AR locked weaves in the
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
   

Should the issue on AR locked weaves be adressed in by vote?
Yes
14%
 14%  [ 1 ]
No
85%
 85%  [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 7

Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

MAIL ISSUE POLL: Position needed on AR locked weaves in the
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

As per 5.2 and 5.3, I am Hereby calling for a motion to be acted upon regarding a discussion which surfaced in this topic.

Quote:
5.3 - Issue Polls

An issue poll can be initiated by any member in good standing of the M.A.I.L. community by posting a clearly labelled and worded poll to the discussion board with the subject line "MAIL ISSUE POLL: 'topic' ". This poll determines whether a vote will be taken. An issue poll is considered to be successful if a majority of those participating in the poll are in favor of initiating a vote on the issue presented in the poll. An issue poll must be acted on by the B.O.D. when a significant portion of the currently active membership have participated in the poll.


Discussions and motions on this issue, such as suggested wordings to be appended or discussion on weave criteria are to be posted in this topic. Please remain civil and on topic. Any arguments regarding members or BOD are NOT on topic.

The topic for this issue is the Stance on AR locking in weaves.

This topic is not fully adressed, neither guidelines or tag definition, and therefore I hope this topic, regardless of poll result, can result in a coherrent and good definition on AR locking.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 601
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:36 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'd like a clear definition of "AR locking in weaves" prior to voting. As it stands, it is a rather broad term.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:39 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Also, this issue poll will sadly never meet the criteria for passing. It simply cannot, given the current "active member" issue. Which is why part of what I brought up in the other thread was charter alteration.



Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:47 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I fully agree with you, And that is why we need this topic.

The current charter requires this kind of poll before a vote.

We recently adressed the Kaedes weaves
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=91
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=414

And their decendants, as well as the JPL family
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=335

These share the common denominator of AR locking. These weaves retain their structure by using low AR in a small spectrum, loosing form if too high AR is used.

That is the definition I am using, but I don't know if there could be a better One.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:50 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
Also, this issue poll will sadly never meet the criteria for passing. It simply cannot, given the current "active member" issue. Which is why part of what I brought up in the other thread was charter alteration.


As long as we formally adress the issue, progress can be won. I don't care if this pass or fails. I care for progress in the name of maille science.
While the charter could be Altered, we can "try" to Apply it in the meantime.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 601
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:57 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
These share the common denominator of AR locking. These weaves retain their structure by using low AR in a small spectrum, loosing form if too high AR is used.

I'll give myself a couple days to think about, but I would definitely be against that. I consider Dragonscale to lose its structure if the smaller rings are too big. While it is true there isn't a different name for the changed structure... (as there shouldn't be), it would fall under that definition. Of course the structure change isn't as dramatic as JPL3 to Spiral 4 in 1.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: June 20, 2012
Posts: 326
Submissions: 22
Location: France

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:50 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

First, I'd like to know what are the current rules/guidelines on accepting weaves in the library before discussing changing them.

Next, I don't think the issue of "AR locked weave" should be treated on the "AR lock" aspect, but by considering if the weave variation has distinct physical proprieties and/or aspect from its parent weave.

JPL and Spiral 4-1 may be structurally identical, but they have a completely different behavior, thus both merits its own place in the library.
I expect MW's Maktub and Cosette and X-weave / Spring Chain / Forars Kaede to have pretty much the same behavior, and they have a very similar look, so I'll consider them to all be the same thing, thus only one library entry.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:14 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

weave submission guidelines

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
These share the common denominator of AR locking. These weaves retain their structure by using low AR in a small spectrum, loosing form if too high AR is used.

I'll give myself a couple days to think about, but I would definitely be against that. I consider Dragonscale to lose its structure if the smaller rings are too big. While it is true there isn't a different name for the changed structure... (as there shouldn't be), it would fall under that definition. Of course the structure change isn't as dramatic as JPL3 to Spiral 4 in 1.


You are of course correct in that it might be a broad definition, but the main structure is not radically changed in dragonscale and the kaede weaves, unlike JPL.

Shirluban wrote:
First, I'd like to know what are the current rules/guidelines on accepting weaves in the library before discussing changing them.

Next, I don't think the issue of "AR locked weave" should be treated on the "AR lock" aspect, but by considering if the weave variation has distinct physical proprieties and/or aspect from its parent weave.

JPL and Spiral 4-1 may be structurally identical, but they have a completely different behavior, thus both merits its own place in the library.
I expect MW's Maktub and Cosette and X-weave / Spring Chain / Forars Kaede to have pretty much the same behavior, and they have a very similar look, so I'll consider them to all be the same thing, thus only one library entry.


Guidelines submitted on top.
You need to include hawkskaede (previously linked, 414) in that list, which means that hawkskaede should be removed from the library.

Prefereably, those weaves Where we Conclude that they are the same, should be resubmitted with Higher AR, so no false Grain is percieved.[/i]


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 601
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:22 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
You are of course correct in that it might be a broad definition, but the main structure is not radically changed in dragonscale and the kaede weaves, unlike JPL.

Actually, I do consider the kaede weaves to be significantly changed.
Then my next question is how radical can the change be to not be counted?
If the change is radical enough and has multiple variations, how many variations should be newly named weaves? (ex: Jens Pind Linkage 3 and Variants - Definitions; Differences and Distinguishing Characteristics, section "TWISTSTEP PATTERNS and JPL VARIANTS")
^ Those are mostly rhetorical questions (as I don't believe there is a good answer).


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:18 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

My personal opinion... Jens Pind Linkage is the actual weave and Spiral 4 in 1 is the variation that doesn't depend on an AR that makes the weave stable. You must twist Spiral 4 in 1 in a specific way in order for it to look like a spiral. (Or, you must use special rings. See: Stabilizing Twist of Spiral Chains for more information.) If you do a real analysis of JPL3, you will find that the rings MUST be in a specific position for the weave to work. However, Spiral 4 in 1 is unstable with round rings of a higher AR.

Yes, I know you don't like Byzantine, but have you seen it with a very large AR? It is unstable. Have you tried to make a captive weave that will not hold the captive? That is not "AR locked", it simply doesn't work. Have you made Hoodoo? (Yes, I am aware of its connection to Byzantine...) It doesn't work with rings that are too large. That doesn't mean it's not a weave. That just means it needs a small and specific AR to be stable.

I don't think there is actually an "AR locked weave" category.


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: February 15, 2002
Posts: 385
Submissions: 10

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:26 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Spiral requires its ring interactions, and JPL3 requires the same ring interactions PLUS the cousin interaction, which spiral does not have. In my opinion, AR locking sounds like just another method of describing the cousin interaction. If unfamiliar with cousins, please refer to http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=16302.


IGP (Irregular Grid Painter) Links:
Home | FAQ | Downloads

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:01 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
Display posts from previous: