Basic requirments for submissions to the new section
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294

Basic requirments for submissions to the new section
Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:01 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

The vote was a 'Yes' for the new section involving unusual rings and/or weaves.

OK next step is to decide what can and can't go into the new section for 'weaves that require non standard rings' or 'non standard weaves' or whatever the hell it ends up being called.

Seems to me it would be better to have some idea of what will be in there before deciding on what to call it.

So Please post your thoughts on what should and should not be allowed and why.

Thanks


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

Joined: February 06, 2006
Posts: 314
Submissions: 6
Location: Austin

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:49 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Quote:
Seems to me it would be better to have some idea of what will be in there before deciding on what to call it.


May I suggest the reverse. Open an "Special weaves section" and dump weaves that don't fit elsewhere in there, for say a month or so, then see if there is any commonality that could be used to name the section properly?

Not allowed-wire weavings. Has to be "rings" of some sort.

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:54 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Good suggestion, let's see what else comes up.


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

Joined: March 21, 2004
Posts: 503
Submissions: 8
Location: CT, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:07 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Non-standard... like 'Laundry bucket'? do do washers not count?

LOL


Hail to the king, baby.

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3612
Submissions: 150
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:09 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm with Euar's suggestion - give birth to the child first, give it an interim name, and let it grow a couple of weeks. And decide then, how it is to be christened in the end, and which entries are maybe not appropriate or not more maille (even in the aimed-at extended ruling valid for that area).

@Dreemr: If you find/create a weave that NEEDS washers to be doable, dump^W submit Very Happy it there - now we finally have a place for such weaves, that previously not existed.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper Mfe.s Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Pj Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hi

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 12, 2008
Posts: 776
Submissions: 12
Location: Ketchikan, Alaska

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:47 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I agree with opening it up and then figuring out what to call it.

But I really do think we should consider whether or not to add any restrictions. Ones I would like to consider are:
-If the link is non-toroidal, it must be necessary that the ring is non-toroidal, meaning that if it can be replaced with a standard ring, it belongs in the standard weave section. I suggest this to prevent an innundation of of standard weaves, such as byz, e4-1, etc, made with simple replacements, such as neoprene rings, etc., that would end up being weeded out, anyway.
-Multiple views should be submitted, so we can really see what's going on with interactions while we're trying to figure this out.
-Although instructions do not belong in the submission, ALL PERTINENT LINK INFORMATION DOES, which should include material and size so that it can be replicated should someone want to give it a try.
-For purposes of identification and categorization, the submitting member needs to remain available to answer questions regarding construction.

I know these are common sense, and some of it is already requisite, but I think it really bears emphatic repeating if these submissions are going to withstand the microscopic scrutiny that they will likely be subjected to. Again, just throwing ideas out... what do you guys think?


Maille Code V1.0 T5.1 R3.6 Feur MAg.t Wcmi Cjwc G2.0/0.6 I38.1/2.5 Pj Dj S99 CCips

Joined: August 14, 2006
Posts: 1884
Submissions: 50
Location: McPherson, Kansas

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:29 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

For what it's worth, washers are just toroidal rings made with flat wire, so any weaves submitted that say they "require" washers need to have things examined very closely as to whether that is accurate or not. Well, actually, everything going in here will need to have a very close examination. But yeah, I can foresee this having all sorts of interesting links that may cause some confusion.

Anything submitted must be comprised of some sort of finite link. Despite the similarities that get mentioned between Viking Knit and Loop in Loop (Foxtail), Foxtail would go there, Viking Knit would not.

I'd like to comment that 'Crazy Bits' may end up being an appropriate name when things get into full swing.


Comprehensive Diameter Database: Web Page | Online Spreadsheet | About the database

"When you have bigger wire, you make bigger maille. It's neat like that." -Cynake, January 15, 2009

Joined: March 21, 2004
Posts: 503
Submissions: 8
Location: CT, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:33 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Talia wrote:
I agree with opening it up and then figuring out what to call it.

But I really do think we should consider whether or not to add any restrictions. Ones I would like to consider are:
-If the link is non-toroidal, it must be necessary that the ring is non-toroidal,


RATS! foiled again by you meddling kids. =D


Hail to the king, baby.

Joined: August 12, 2008
Posts: 776
Submissions: 12
Location: Ketchikan, Alaska

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:48 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Elemental Dragon wrote:
Anything submitted must be comprised of some sort of finite link. Despite the similarities that get mentioned between Viking Knit and Loop in Loop (Foxtail), Foxtail would go there, Viking Knit would not.

I agree.


Maille Code V1.0 T5.1 R3.6 Feur MAg.t Wcmi Cjwc G2.0/0.6 I38.1/2.5 Pj Dj S99 CCips

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7026
Submissions: 294

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:52 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Very good points and suggestions Talia, pretty much how I've been considering thsi.


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3612
Submissions: 150
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:24 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Talia: I agree wholeheartedly. While I like to encourage people to submit anything, that is a "weave" in the widest sense (defined by 'linking' a couple of 'rings'/links, resulting in a repeating or repeatable pattern - exception: unit weaves where the repeatability rule is loosened or canceled), it will be the job of the admins to decide if it is agreeable to publish - and in doubt I would like to propose a two-admin vote if a submission is rejected (so 'personal taste' is a bit canceled out for such a decision). BTW: That basic "ring" rule mentioned above already cancels a possible submission of Viking knit - no links, no weave -> refer to WIRE...

In fact, this area is made for weaves, where the term 'ring' (usually defined as toroidal shape) is replaced by the term 'link' (undefined shape, but consisting of minimally one hole in some body for allowing to be linked) in a weave's definition - not more, not less. And there seems to be a consensus, that such 'mis-formed' links have to be a necessity for a weave to be allowed here.

And that area MUST NOT become the submission dumpster.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper Mfe.s Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Pj Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hi

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 12, 2008
Posts: 776
Submissions: 12
Location: Ketchikan, Alaska

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:03 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
[....] it will be the job of the admins to decide if it is agreeable to publish - and in doubt I would like to propose a two-admin vote if a submission is rejected (so 'personal taste' is a bit canceled out for such a decision).

I think Legba's already been doing this on an informal level- seeking out second opinions and/or other administrative backing when a submission is not clear-cut. It has seemed to me that she exhibits all due caution before declining a submission. While I understand that your proposal is not intended to reflect on her decision making- only to provide the structural assurance that nothing will be unduely lost Smile , I'm not sure it needs to be a formalized procedure.

I do, however, believe in erring on the side of caution. Since the new category would be a testing zone, I think that, unless a submission is clearly not adhering to whatever guidelines are set forth, and since the category is up for community review (for the purposes of categorization, etc.), it should be allowed in with the understanding that if the community later finds that the submission truly does not belong, that the membership has the perogative to say, "this doesn't belong," and have it removed. I, too, would hate to see a valid submission lost.


Maille Code V1.0 T5.1 R3.6 Feur MAg.t Wcmi Cjwc G2.0/0.6 I38.1/2.5 Pj Dj S99 CCips

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3612
Submissions: 150
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:23 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Talia: I see the value of your proposal - so let's try to start with really loose ruling, and shift the limits after first entries are in? That might make sense, but bears some possible jeopardy, admins might become forced into. We all know how much opinions can differ, and how seldom these can be changed even by valid arguments...

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper Mfe.s Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Pj Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hi

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 14, 2006
Posts: 1884
Submissions: 50
Location: McPherson, Kansas

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:49 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Talia wrote:

I do, however, believe in erring on the side of caution. Since the new category would be a testing zone, I think that, unless a submission is clearly not adhering to whatever guidelines are set forth, and since the category is up for community review (for the purposes of categorization, etc.), it should be allowed in with the understanding that if the community later finds that the submission truly does not belong, that the membership has the perogative to say, "this doesn't belong," and have it removed. I, too, would hate to see a valid submission lost.


I think that may go for anything, existing or new, once 3.0 gets rolled out.
From sakredchao's post in IMPORTANT PLEASE VOTE on non standard weaves section:
sakredchao wrote:
once a weave is submitted the membership may challenge any of the tags, and hash it out in a discussion like this. the weaves admin has the final call, but the membership is encouraged to actively participate.. encouraged to question authority.

nothing assigned is permanent.


While it sounds like he's just talking about tags or attributes of weave submissions, I hope that can go for the weaves themselves, as well.


Comprehensive Diameter Database: Web Page | Online Spreadsheet | About the database

"When you have bigger wire, you make bigger maille. It's neat like that." -Cynake, January 15, 2009

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4372
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:23 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

if we allow bar and eye links without qualifications, we will get one of those folding baskets as a submission.. you know those things they sell next to the kaleidoscopes..? maybe that isn't so bad, i'm just saying expect it.

knit and crochet chains are easy to keep out by saying "links required".

i would go so far as to say anything, anywhere on this site may be challenged by anyone. if the admin in charge of that area is not interested in hearing the case, expect to need a large memberbase behind you to really do anything about it.

this area is a perfect example of that. iirc, the admins had decided we didn't need this area. zili posted his poll, despite the BOD opinion, and here we are, democracy in action.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2. Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:34 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: