So what is it?
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: June 13, 2009
Posts: 490
Submissions: 153

So what is it?
Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:58 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

So Nessy here was the first sculpture I ever made.


Someone who was looking at a picture of it recently asked me what weave it was. Well naturally I said it's E 4-1 with the center rings captured by a ring(or rings). In the case of Nessy it is a mobius. You can also see it featured in this bracelet.



My first instinct is that this must already exist, and have a name. I would like to know what it is. If not then toss it in the pile.

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:41 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

What you have there is European 4-1 with just the right AR to make it work in a very cleverly designed sculpture.
Similar to this:
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?oldkey=7252
And to this:
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=914
Both of which fit into the "look what I did with" E4-1 design category, in my opinion.


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

Joined: June 13, 2009
Posts: 490
Submissions: 153

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:58 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

lorraine wrote:
What you have there is European 4-1 with just the right AR to make it work in a very cleverly designed sculpture.
Similar to this:
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?oldkey=7252
And to this:
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=914
Both of which fit into the "look what I did with" E4-1 design category, in my opinion.


Hmm. So it is a weave then without a name, and should be submitted.

Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1015
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:33 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

It sounded like lorraine was trying to argue that this is not a new weave, just a cool use of Euro 4-1. It seems contradictory, however, that she used two separate (actual) weaves to prove the point.

Lorraine, were you arguing for or against this as a new weave?

Joined: June 13, 2009
Posts: 490
Submissions: 153

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:45 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Vorondil wrote:
It sounded like lorraine was trying to argue that this is not a new weave, just a cool use of Euro 4-1. It seems contradictory, however, that she used two separate (actual) weaves to prove the point.

Lorraine, were you arguing for or against this as a new weave?


Perhaps. It seemed an argument for it being a weave as well as her opinion as to what category it would fall under. 90% of the weaves in the database are just "Look what I can do with (origin weave here)". Even her own Snapdragon weave states it is derived from HP 3-1. I just need to make a more presentable original for a submission. I doubt using the sculpture would make the submission easier to understand.

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:39 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I do not see anything in these pictures that looks like a "new weave". It looks like European 4-1 to me. I consider gathering up the rings on alternating sides into a wavy shape a design decision. Not a new weave. In other words, a "look what cool thing I did with ______" design. That's why I pointed to the other weaves. I consider those to be in the same category. Threading a ring through the side rings of a strip of E4-1 is a great use of E4-1, but it's still E4-1. I apologize for not making my opinion clearer to begin with.

There are quite a few submissions in the weaves library that are in my opinion not actually "new" weaves. Some of them are very minor variations of existing weaves. Some of them are designs using existing weaves with very little, to no new ring interactions. This opinion is not intended to be a value judgment. Lots of the submissions are still very pretty/clever/awesome etc. But to automatically include them in the weaves library because "other similar weaves made it in in the past" is a substandard way to manage an increasingly complicated database.

Weaves should be evaluated individually, and without regard to who submitted them. Making those evaluations now is much easier than it was when the library was small. In the beginning there was very little discussion as to what was new. Everything looked new. There wasn't much to compare it to. Things were eagerly accepted because it seemed that more was better. But the library is becoming/has become a confusing mess of weaves mixed in with other things. This is not a revelation... it's been an ongoing discussion for quite some time now. I don't understand why discussing it is a bad thing? Maybe someone will read one of these threads and say, "Hey! I have an idea!" and it will be a GOOD one. One that helps MAIL and the community sort things in a comprehensible way. How can that be a bad thing?

The weave "submitter" is not always the weave "discoverer", and that is the case with Snapdragon. As it says in the weave description "It is a weave by Brighton." Here is the thread that explains why that submission is under my name.

This however is my "weave". It's not based on Barrel Weave, it is Barrel Weave. Putting a large ring through the back of it to hold it in a circle does not in my opinion make it a new weave. It's a design. Nothing wrong with it being a design, but it doesn't belong in the weaves library. That's why it has been sitting in the weaves edit queue for awhile now, awaiting deletion. It will still be in the gallery with all its information, nothing lost, just where it should be.


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

Joined: June 13, 2009
Posts: 490
Submissions: 153

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:05 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

By what criteria do you define a weave then? How in the end does one judge?
I think perhaps that needs to be explored.
A weave to me is an original, or design change that has a unique effect on the behavior of the weave. Any less definition leaves us with maybe six weaves, and hundreds of designs.

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:13 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Derailed wrote:
By what criteria do you define a weave then? How in the end does one judge?
I think perhaps that needs to be explored.
A weave to me is an original, or design change that has a unique effect on the behavior of the weave. Any less definition leaves us with maybe six weaves, and hundreds of designs.


There is an existing set of criteria that are used, perhaps somewhat loosely...
You can dig through the old forum threads from Tesserex, sakredchao, lorenzo, and Legba3, and get a pretty good grasp on what these are.

They have changed over the course of the years. And the database has never been updated to reflect this.

We have a lot of old 'weaves' that would not pass submission under the current standards, but have been simply 'grandfathered' in.

A lot of this is perhaps to do with people treating their submissions as 'badges of achievement', and as such take it personally when someone questions the validity of such, and in an attempt to keep the peace, nobody really goes "Hey, how about weave's X, Y, and Z? Should they be deleted?!"... Maybe we should. I'm not one to judge.

I agree with you, there are plenty, perhaps hundreds of very minor modifications in the weave database. Are any of them new 'weaves' as such? Probably not. Is that my decision? No.
At the end of the day, while the administration may, at their discretion, weigh in on any of the weaves that are submitted... The final decision rests squarely on the shoulders of the Weaves Admin.

The subject of what is, or isn't, a weave gets explored frequently... And inevitably goes nowhere... Either a concensus cannot be reached, or it just degenerates into an argument... Feel free to rehash it though, might I suggest starting a new thread though, rather than carrying it on in this one.



Joined: June 13, 2009
Posts: 490
Submissions: 153

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:48 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:

There is an existing set of criteria that are used, perhaps somewhat loosely...
You can dig through the old forum threads from Tesserex, sakredchao, lorenzo, and Legba3, and get a pretty good grasp on what these are.

They have changed over the course of the years. And the database has never been updated to reflect this.

We have a lot of old 'weaves' that would not pass submission under the current standards, but have been simply 'grandfathered' in.

A lot of this is perhaps to do with people treating their submissions as 'badges of achievement', and as such take it personally when someone questions the validity of such, and in an attempt to keep the peace, nobody really goes "Hey, how about weave's X, Y, and Z? Should they be deleted?!"... Maybe we should. I'm not one to judge.

I agree with you, there are plenty, perhaps hundreds of very minor modifications in the weave database. Are any of them new 'weaves' as such? Probably not. Is that my decision? No.
At the end of the day, while the administration may, at their discretion, weigh in on any of the weaves that are submitted... The final decision rests squarely on the shoulders of the Weaves Admin.

The subject of what is, or isn't, a weave gets explored frequently... And inevitably goes nowhere... Either a concensus cannot be reached, or it just degenerates into an argument... Feel free to rehash it though, might I suggest starting a new thread though, rather than carrying it on in this one.


So there is no guideline or criteria that anyone is using, and it is all up to one person to judge, and the rules change as the admin changes.

That is a very cruel position to put someone in. I say that with compassion for Lorraine, and any previous wave admins. Asking anyone to make decisions that we know have such personal feelings attached kind of scapegoats someone when they have no guideline to defend their judgments on. Almost every judge of any kind(ignoring reality television) has rules, laws, or guidelines on which to support their decisions.

I would love to have a new thread if others are interested. I think it would be good to discuss actual weave criteria, and perhaps another to consider less punitive methods of applying the criteria. Perhaps and advocate system instead of a judge alone.

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:56 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Derailed wrote:
So there is no guideline or criteria that anyone is using, and it is all up to one person to judge, and the rules change as the admin changes.


*cough*
Daemon_Lotos wrote:

There is an existing set of criteria that are used, perhaps somewhat loosely...
You can dig through the old forum threads from Tesserex, sakredchao, lorenzo, and Legba3, and get a pretty good grasp on what these are.
*cough*


Maaaannnn... I need to get that cough looked at... That was a lungful... Rolling Eyes



Joined: June 13, 2009
Posts: 490
Submissions: 153

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:10 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

There is an existing set of criteria that are used, perhaps somewhat loosely...

A loose criteria

They have changed over the course of the years. And the database has never been updated to reflect this.

That has changed, and never updated

We have a lot of old 'weaves' that would not pass submission under the current standards, but have been simply 'grandfathered' in.

The never updated loose criteria is not applied to allot of the weaves.

At the end of the day, while the administration may, at their discretion, weigh in on any of the weaves that are submitted... The final decision rests squarely on the shoulders of the Weaves Admin.

The decision is up to the admin, not compared against a set expectation that is clearly stated, understood, or ever been complied with.

The subject of what is, or isn't, a weave gets explored frequently... And inevitably goes nowhere... Either a concensus cannot be reached, or it just degenerates into an argument...

So you have a loose criteria, not posted clearly anywhere, with no consensus , that is not complied with , that doesn't represent a fair bulk of the submissions, that is applied by an admin who has the sole responsibility to make judgments without the tools to support the task.

I say with all respect there are no guideline or criteria that anyone is using, and it is all up to one person to judge, and the rules change as the admin changes.

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:18 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

*admin hat about as far OFF as it can get... This is DL speaking as DL folks*

Seriously now...

If you want to be difficult, go be difficult somewhere with a babysitter, you shouldn't be let out in public acting like that. Would you like to bold or italicize anything else for emphasis?

I don't have the time or patience to go thirteen rounds with you just because you feel like arguing a non-issue.

Nobody has argued that being an admin around here is a great job, you get very little guidance, and a whole lack of thanks...
Instead you get folk like you determined to pick holes in every last little thing said.

We all, do the best we can... With what we're given.
And if you don't like that, you know what? I don't give a rats.

This is the second time you've attempted to butt heads with me, the first time I let it drop because I was acting within an official capacity at the time... But this time, as just another person in the world, I'm telling you you can take a long walk off a short pier.

*secondary disclaimer: Yes, I know I'm way off base, but I take personal issue with someone twisting my words to fill their own purpose... Please don't take anything I've said above as the view of MAIL as an entity, or any resemblance of how I act within my official capacity... But then, most of you reading this should already know that.*

*tertiary disclaimer: Any admin/mon reading this that feels the need to edit me, please do so.*

Thank you, thank you very much.



Joined: June 13, 2009
Posts: 490
Submissions: 153

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:09 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Seriously now...

If you want to be difficult, go be difficult somewhere with a babysitter, you shouldn't be let out in public acting like that. Would you like to bold or italicize anything else for emphasis?

Well I really suck at handling quotes. I figured it was easier to format this way so It wouldn't be too confusing. I am not sure how I am acting that has relevance to public, or private. I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and sharing opinions.


I don't have the time or patience to go thirteen rounds with you just because you feel like arguing a non-issue.

Then don't. No one twisted your arm. Just because you think it isn't an issue doesn't mean I have to agree. I don't have to be angry, or loose patience with you. I asked a question in this thread. You responded to it. You seem to be upset by my conclusion. So just ignore me if I irritate you.


Nobody has argued that being an admin around here is a great job, you get very little guidance, and a whole lack of thanks...
Instead you get folk like you determined to pick holes in every last little thing said.


I thought this was a discussion forum, and a thread I started. If I decide to pick holes what do you, or anyone who doesn't really want to participate have to do with it. Why is picking holes a bad thing? I wasn't insulting. I wasn't even trying to be smug/condescending/funny/affectionate/coy/infected with a *cough* quote.

We all, do the best we can... With what we're given.
And if you don't like that, you know what? I don't give a rats.


Oh yes you do. Something dragged you into this, and with such emotion.
It boggles me as to why. I will forget about this far quicker then you I imagine. I was interested where the topic was going. As it seems you intend to kill the idea then I couldn't care less who gives any rat parts.


This is the second time you've attempted to butt heads with me, the first time I let it drop because I was acting within an official capacity at the time... But this time, as just another person in the world, I'm telling you you can take a long walk off a short pier.

So I assume all the adult conversation you have offered in the past, and mature advice you have offered me has dried up. I honestly will miss what I though was the chance to explore these topics with you. I'm sorry you either don't take my interest as serious, or somehow think they were attacks.


*secondary disclaimer: Yes, I know I'm way off base, but I take personal issue with someone twisting my words to fill their own purpose... Please don't take anything I've said above as the view of MAIL as an entity, or any resemblance of how I act within my official capacity... But then, most of you reading this should already know that.*

Now I thought after all that you were done with the discussion? Lets assume I was twisting your words to suit my purpose. I think it might be very enlightening to know what you think my purpose was as it may explain why you reacted the way you did. You obviously think I have some specific motive.

And again to spare confusion. I use the font differences to try and be clear, and compensate for my quoting skills. It isn't intended to enflame anyone.

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:46 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Derailed wrote:
Now I thought after all that you were done with the discussion? Lets assume I was twisting your words to suit my purpose. I think it might be very enlightening to know what you think my purpose was as it may explain why you reacted the way you did. You obviously think I have some specific motive.


Yup!

You set out with the notion in your head that there are no guidelines, you said as much, I corrected you, and then you attempted to prove (using my own post, no less) that you were right.

If that's not twisting my words, to suit your purpose, then I don't know what is... But, pretending for a second that I'm really not pissed off about that, since you genuinely seem to think you weren't being an ass, I'll play along and explain.

(Italics seem to be me, Bold is Derailed)

Derailed wrote:
There is an existing set of criteria that are used, perhaps somewhat loosely...

A loose criteria


Yup, almost nessecarily so, since nobody anywhere can forsee all the possiblities...

Derailed wrote:
They have changed over the course of the years. And the database has never been updated to reflect this.

That has changed, and never updated


The criteria have changed, the weaves have never been updated. (Read: We've never gone on a purge-fest because someone realized that you can't just "King" every weave in existance and call it a new weave... Kingmaille still exists in the DB folks.)

Derailed wrote:
We have a lot of old 'weaves' that would not pass submission under the current standards, but have been simply 'grandfathered' in.

The never updated loose criteria is not applied to allot of the weaves.


It's not been applied past tense, no... Just like the 40 year old house that your parents live in wasn't bulldozed just because someone decided that wall studs in new houses need to be 2'6" appart instead of 3' appart.
Expecting us to empty, and rebuild the entire DB from scratch everytime someone challenges an aspect of weave theory is lunacy.

Derailed wrote:
At the end of the day, while the administration may, at their discretion, weigh in on any of the weaves that are submitted... The final decision rests squarely on the shoulders of the Weaves Admin.

The decision is up to the admin, not compared against a set expectation that is clearly stated, understood, or ever been complied with.


The final decision in anything, ever, eventually rests with someone. This someone, is generally trusted with making such decisions. I fully expect anyone named 'Weave Admin' to have a solid understanding of weave theory. Just as you expect the guy that took you on your driving test knew what he was looking for. At the end of the day, maybe he didn't deduct that point for not signalling because you were talking to him at the time, and he missed it... But 99% of the time, I bet he gets it bang on.

Derailed wrote:
The subject of what is, or isn't, a weave gets explored frequently... And inevitably goes nowhere... Either a concensus cannot be reached, or it just degenerates into an argument...

So you have a loose criteria, not posted clearly anywhere, with no consensus , that is not complied with , that doesn't represent a fair bulk of the submissions, that is applied by an admin who has the sole responsibility to make judgments without the tools to support the task.

I say with all respect there are no guideline or criteria that anyone is using, and it is all up to one person to judge, and the rules change as the admin changes.


And you wonder why I think your assumptions won't hold water? I'm not convinced I can even follow all the negatives in that, and I'm responsible for the work you based it on.

You can lay anything out, and make it look like it supports your point, which is what you attempted to do here.
But just because I can't point you to a neat little page with lists and tables, showing you what is and isn't a weave, doesn't mean that nobody around here has a grasp of weave theory, and it certainly doesn't mean the weave DB was created haphazardly.


Regarding other topics posted prior...

I have no desire to kill the idea, I encourage weave theory discussion, as I think we still have a long way to go, in a constantly changing area.
People still argue about GSG being a real weave, for example... Not to mention the 'Units' discussion...
I went so far as to suggest you create a new thread about it.

And no, I have no intention of withdrawing and help or advice offered past present, or future... I am, and continue to attempt to be, helpful in regards to questions I feel I can answer.

As for getting dragged in, as I said, you were attempting to misrepresent what I said, and attempt to use it to fortify your position. Since I disagree with your position (that there are no criteria, etc) and was writing to that effect, I'm certain you can understand my distaste with being quoted so... Especially twice.

I'm sorry I flew off the handle earlier, but at the same time I'm not... I was furious at the time, that someone would attempt to misrepresent something that I said... And since I've calmed down now, hopefully you can understand what just transpired from my perspective.
Re-reading my post, I also apologize for calling you an ass at the start of this post, but since I write very much as I think, I'm leaving it in for full effect.



Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 600
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:07 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

This forums is largely based on people's own opinion being shared with others. I see no reason to be picking apart everyone that speaks against you without posing your own counter argument, or constructive comment. Why do you think it is or is not a weave? From the way I'm reading the above comments, the moderators have stated why they believe it is not. You obviously disagree with them.

That being said; Even though E4:1 is used, and the change from its original weave is by simply adding 1 ring per unit, it is distinctly changed and possesses an obvious different structure.
However, I do not think that it falls within my definition of a weave. My stance is similar to lorraine on this, where it is an excellent design, but I personally would not consider it an independent weave.


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

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3. Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:21 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: