'Love Knots' by Clever Wench
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1823
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:35 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Clever Wench wrote:
There are sufficient examples of weaves with less merit being accepted into the database.


Indeed. This is one of the problems with how weaves have been accepted in the past. It's one of the things I've discussed with previous weave admins, and it was one of the inconsistencies I saw in Legba's criteria that I pointed out when she first took on that role, and brought up a few times since, indicating where it would lead if that policy was continued.

Quote:
I feel that your interpretation of what makes a weave is entirely too restrictive. This may be because you have never submitted a weave at all, nor posted to the gallery. Do you maille or are you just a theorist? If this is your chosen contribution to maille, I can understand your position, but it does put you outside the experience of most of the members of this community.


I'll again give you the benefit of the doubt, and try not to interpret that as the cheap shot ad hominem argument I suspect it also is.

I'm quite comfortable with my grasp of weave theory, my contribution to this community so far, and my skills and experience as a mailler. If you don't think my words have merit because I have not contributed enough, or that my lack of official submissions indicates a lack of experience or understanding with the matter, so be it.

If you'd like to see some samples of my work, check your PMs soon after I send this reply, and then I suppose come back here and give your opinion on my abilities if it changes your opinion.

The only thing that my not having submitted anything impacts, perhaps, is knowing what it feels like to have emotional attachment to a weave I submitted. Though, one, I'm a rather egoless, objective person, and two, I don't see how that invalidates any of my other knowledge. Unless you're claiming that since I have not submitted anything, that I do not understand anything about chainmaille? Is that what the "it does put you outside the experience of most of the members of this community" part was about?

I do not make as much maille as others, this is true. Especially in the last 5 years since I have moved to the BOD, the majority of my time I feel like doing things with chainmaille, it has been to plan how to improve the way MAIL operates and enhance the potential of the infrastructure that it's based on. I think big picture, and it leaves me less time to actually sit around twisting metal.

A large part of why I have not submitted new weaves, is because I have been unable to understand the criteria in place for them. I have suggested dozens of weaves, to see if they would be accepted, but could not get feedback on whether they would. Note that I'm an admin, and there is no review policy for us. If we submit something, it bypasses the queue and is created directly on the database immediately (just how the website was designed, back when expectations were low).

Another large part is that I don't want to spend my time supporting a decaying and obsolete infrastructure. Every time I start to do a writeup for MAIL, I get a little ways into it and then head off to my 3.0 notes to invest more time in that, instead.

Consider your own position, if your argument is people's words should be weighed based on their experience. You've been around not yet one year here. I've been around since the community was founded, and active in it for the last 8 years. While you've been around, there has only been one weaves admin, and your experience with weave acceptance or denial is based on that one admin's take on things. I've been around and discussed weaves, weave theory, acceptance and denial criteria, and much more, with the previous 5 weave admins, (Sakredchao & Lorenzo, founders of this community, Blaise, Tesserex, who left, in part, because of the frustration with the limitations of the current system, and Legba). Each who saw things differently. And I've picked their brains pretty good on all of it. I've talked with a handful of people who've been around for a decade in the art who'd make excellent weave admins, if they had the time.

I've lots to learn, but I'm pretty comfortable saying when I open my mouth, it's because I know my stuff.

Quote:
There is an understandable pride and excitement having a weave accepted.


Yes, very true. However, hopefully, the person who creates and enforces the weave acceptance and categorization policies does not cater to people's pride when they choose to accept, deny, or classify a submission. Because it's not part of it.

Quote:
When MAIL 3.0 is implemented, my Love Knots can happily be listed as a variant of Double Spiral. Until then, it stands on its own merit.


Not really, no.

It's 4 units of double-spiral bolted together. Obvious combo weaves, even under Legba's tenure as weaves admin, according to her criteria, do not pass the acceptance test. Or, weren't supposed to anyway.

Again, do you have any criteria for rejecting any weave? Or should we just accept everything? Having no rules is easy. No thought required.

Also, in 3.0, probably not how you're thinking either. It wouldn't be listed, by name, as a variant in this case. At least, I don't think. You would submit a picture, and tag it with Double Spiral. And then when people are browsing Double Spiral, they can click an inspiration button that takes them to Gallery images tagged with that weave. They'd browse through them and see all the different ways people chose to use or adapt Double Spiral. They'd come across yours, and say "Oh, wow, I like what she did there, that's interesting."

Combo weaves should almost never get their own named slot. They're a mix-and-match tailoring decision. There are infinite tailoring decisions. Refer to my previous post, I suggested probably 30 or 40 new weaves based on your own submission alone. By your criteria, as I understand them, all of those get added to the database?

In my opinion there is no merit in inspecting and classifying every tailoring decision that pops up. You have to leave some art to the art.

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:55 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Clever Wench wrote:
I feel that your interpretation of what makes a weave is entirely too restrictive. This may be because you have never submitted a weave at all, nor posted to the gallery. Do you maille or are you just a theorist? If this is your chosen contribution to maille, I can understand your position, but it does put you outside the experience of most of the members of this community.

Some people choose not to set up an "I love me" wall in their profile the way you and I do. That does not mean they cannot contribute to a discussion about weaves, or that they should be made to feel like their opinion is less valuable. I do not believe you have the ability to "know the experience of most of the members of this community." I do think you have the ability to choose to discuss questions about your weave submission in a polite way. I would sincerely like to see you demonstrate it.


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

Joined: January 10, 2009
Posts: 615
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:52 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Actually, cynake, the remark on your contributions was not a cheap shot, but rather an attempt to understand your viewpoint. You see, Lorraine, I was not being nasty.

I can understand theorists' love of the art and the need to classify things into what I perceive as overly narrow categories. I can also understand the need of people like me for more inclusive policies making a greater number of variations readily available.

This creative and inclusive vs. technical and exclusive has been an ongoing debate here for a while. It very much seems to me that neither side will change their minds.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3141
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:08 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Clever Wench wrote:
I can understand theorists' love of the art and the need to classify things into what I perceive as overly narrow categories. I can also understand the need of people like me for more inclusive policies making a greater number of variations readily available.

This creative and inclusive vs. technical and exclusive has been an ongoing debate here for a while. It very much seems to me that neither side will change their minds.


Well, if the technical like putting things in categories... Wouldn't they also be inclusive?

Just saying... Coif LoL

I classify myself, as a theoretical mailler... Yet I make an awful lot of maille... I just post pictures of very little of it... The only reason I posted the 4 gallery items I did post, was to test a software change I made to MyMAIL at 3am when nobody else was awake to test for me...

Hell, I've even created several new variants of weaves, that AFAIK to this day don't exist in the MAIL library... Not because I want to keep them to myself, but simply because I don't feel they stand alone as weaves... Maybe I'll get submitting them one day...

Anyway, all that being said...

You're all dancing around in circles... Coif LoL
I think, at the end of the day, you all want the same thing... And it will be (one day) delivered... See my Signature if you don't believe me...

Major weaves will be listed, as well as all their child weaves, and all their child weaves, and all their child weaves. etc.
Variations will also be shown alongside, or underneath, or linked from, or somehow, the weave of which they are a variation of.

One day, somehow, everyone will be happy...
Until then, however... Can we stop dancing in circles? I'm getting dizzy watching... Rolling Eyes



Joined: February 23, 2008
Posts: 132
Submissions: 4

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:47 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Actually Cynake mailles...and he is pretty darn good at it. Too bad only the cool kids get to see it Wink

The new addition to the library is nifty. But ya'll make my head hurt, as well. Happy weaving, everyone Smile

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1823
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:22 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Clever Wench wrote:
Actually, cynake, the remark on your contributions was not a cheap shot, but rather an attempt to understand your viewpoint.


Well, like I said, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

But when you said:

"I feel that your interpretation of what makes a weave is entirely too restrictive. This may be because you have never submitted a weave at all, nor posted to the gallery. Do you maille or are you just a theorist? If this is your chosen contribution to maille, I can understand your position, but it does put you outside the experience of most of the members of this community. "

... I'm not sure how else to read that other than "Your opinion on what should be a weave is limited by the fact that you don't know what you're talking about compared to most maillers, because you've never contributed anything."

So, okay. A bit crass to throw it at me like that, but, I'm not one to talk, so, that's alright if those were your intentions. If that's your stand. Conversely, if I do know what I'm talking about, you should weigh it much more heavily, no?

Quote:
I can also understand the need of people like me for more inclusive policies making a greater number of variations readily available.


The problem is that at some point, the weave database means nothing. And, your suggested criteria, best as I can understand them, lead to the weave database being useless.

It had already become much less useful a year or two before your account was created, leading to at least one weaves admin not having the time or effort to try to fix it. What you are seeing is a trend of things getting worse, not a trend of things being the way they were supposed to be or being best.

Quote:
This creative and inclusive vs. technical and exclusive has been an ongoing debate here for a while. It very much seems to me that neither side will change their minds.


Hrm. You're new. Before Legba took the job, it actually wasn't in debate at all. I can't really remember any disagreements about how weaves were being handled, in the previous 6 or 7 years, aside from the structure starting to grow beyond what it was designed for.

As to the futility, yeah, perhaps. Depends how closeminded people are, and closedminded in which ways.

You can't use reason to talk someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at. And conversely, you can't just share your feelings to talk someone out of a person of something they did not use feelings to arrive at.

If someone wants something "just because", or because it feels right, it's not ever going to talk someone out of a position they have reasons to hold. They didn't rely on how they felt about it to get that position, so changing their feelings won't affect them.

The difference is.. there are situations that work well with reasoning, and other situations that work well with feeling.

This is not a situation about feelings. It's taxonomy. It's a very cold, impersonal, structural, logical, technical thing. It just is. It is everywhere else in the world it's done. If you do not use technical, reasonable methods to approach it, you will fail miserably. The same way you would do a very poor job evaluating the beauty of a bracelet by technical means, you would do a very poor job of designing a taxonomy system with creative criteria.

Apply the proper solution to the problem.

Often I hear people talking about, big picture, what should be a weave based on how they feel, without addressing any criticism of their methods, or the implications of it in terms of policy. They just want to talk about how they feel it's best and ignore all other comments. Well, that's not going to work for this type of problem.

It's just as silly as if I suggested we judge our Gallery contests by applying a formula containing many variables like: number of rings, number of materials, number of weaves used, difficulty of each weave, symmetry, etc. It would fail miserably to be the best way to judge something that is not a technical thing. We don't do that. We just put up a vote and everyone votes for whoever they feel is the winner. Ta da. You can break your feelings down into a few reasons, but mostly it's just a feeling.

It's just as ridiculous to not use technical means for a technical problem.

It's not up for debate, and not just me sharing my opinion. Look it up. Among the relevant left-brained technical activities are: analytical information, problem solving, geometric or spatial memory, and classifications of pictures or words into categories.

That's what figuring out what a weave, and accepting or denying it into a database is.

Right tool for the right job.

Joined: January 10, 2009
Posts: 615
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:28 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

The database can be defined by the parameters of what makes a weave. Those parameters can be defined in any manner.

You prefer a narrower definition, I prefer a broader definition. Doesn't sound to me like I'm being illogical.

In the specific case of Love Knots, (interesting to note, I didn't start this topic, I was being quiet) the weave reveals the unique property of the "knot" at the center of the four pairs of rings which is concealed by Double Spiral, much like Byzantine reveals the box concealed by Box weave. By the standards I have been hearing applied to Love Knots, that should make Byzantine only a variation of Box. The only thing that separates Byzantine from Box is that Byzantine is a unit of Box "bolted" to another unit of Box. It really is the same relationship. The two pairs of rings that form a box unit are the minimum number of rings that define a Box weave. The four pairs of rings used in Love Knots are the minimum number of rings to form a unit of Double Spiral, one less becomes a double-ringed Mobius, one more is extraneous.

On a side note, lay off Legba. She took on a thankless task and you have only made a difficult task more difficult by criticising her tactlessly every time she approved a weave that did not meet your narrower criteria.

I have often seen her appeal to admins and the membership regarding a questionable weave. Not many were willing to comment, saying it was her call as weave admin, but ready enough to come down on her when her judgement did not match theirs. Many of the questionable weaves went into the database BEFORE she took over the post, so she is not entirely responsible for all the things about the database that seem to make you so unhappy.

I, for one, will miss her as weave admin, I'm sorry she's gone. I am grateful to have the opportunity to work with her on Maillers Worldwide. Thank you, Legba, for all your hard work and effort on the behalf of the MAIL membership!

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1823
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:19 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Clever Wench wrote:
You prefer a narrower definition, I prefer a broader definition. Doesn't sound to me like I'm being illogical.


That in itself, no. But by the definition you use, I can probably "invent" 1000 "new" weaves on the spot. All of which are probably useless, frivolous, minor tailoring decisions.

Quote:
By the standards I have been hearing applied to Love Knots, that should make Byzantine only a variation of Box.


No. By the logic you're applying, any lump of anything connected to more of that lump of anything, by 2 rings, is a "to box what byzantine is" connection. It's not.

Simplistic, core weaves get away with more than complicated ones because they do interesting and unique things. Also, because it is more difficult to come up with a simple solution than a complex one. It's why Euro 4-1 is more interesting than Euro 24-1. It's why Box is interesting, and a 20-wide tube of E4-1 is not.

One of the better criteria I've heard for a weave not being a simple combo weave, is that the pattern continues in a cohesive manner. It doesn't just start and stop.

Quote:
The only thing that separates Byzantine from Box is that Byzantine is a unit of Box "bolted" to another unit of Box. It really is the same relationship.


Byz is a lot more than just segments of Box joined by two rings. What happens when you remove the connecting rings in Byz? What are you left with? Nothing. A little 4-ring loop of 1-1. The connector rings don't just hold segments together, they are an integral part of those segments themselves. Byz, as a whole, is an integral structure.

Examine Byzantine sheet, it's in the library as Turkish Sheet by Lorenzo I think, under the Euro heading. Here's some I made without knowing it existed yet:









Byzantine chain weave is the tightest tube form of Byzantine Sheet, and exhibits unique properties upon collapsing down to a cross section of 4, losing the depth dimension to the connector rings when dropping from 6. By forming a small tube, Byzantine (and Turkish, and Celtic) also removes the tendency to auto-deform when under tension, as the angles lock at 45, 45, 90, rather than try to equalize at 60.

Byz has a ton of interesting stuff about it that makes it unique and really quite remarkable. It certainly has a lot more going on than simply being 2-connector rings bolting chunks of Box together, which it's not, since they don't exist without the connectors. Byz probably has more unique about it than any other weave.

There is plenty more to weave theory than the simplistic way you've reduced it to. You are correct in that there is a Byz-Box relationship, but I don't think you grasp that the reasons it is valid, is for reasons far beyond just being connector rings.

Quote:
On a side note, lay off Legba. She took on a thankless task and you have only made a difficult task more difficult by criticising her tactlessly every time she approved a weave that did not meet your narrower criteria.


Really, couldn't make this private? Gotta drag it out here where I can now either let it be presumed true, or take your derailment for a ride a bit to address it?

*sigh*

I've been Legba's staunchest defendant on the thanklessness of being an admin, and the difficulty of being weaves admin. I've said it repeatedly. I cautioned her before she volunteered.

I haven't tactlessly criticized her, and I certainly didn't do so every time she approved a weave I didn't agree with. I was as hands-off as possible. I never visit the front page of MAIL, I never click the New Weaves button, and I only checked the submission queue if there was a problem. I specifically did not want to be thinking about weaves.

I do suspect I would've had a problem with at least half the weaves she accepted, if not more, though I wouldn't know, 'cause I kept my hands off it. The only times I ever commented was when it came up in thread, and I clicked the links to see what the deal was.

I don't think there is an acceptable way of criticizing anyone in your head. You'll see it as tactless and an attack no matter what, simply by disagreement. You've said as much in the past, claiming you for sure know what my intentions were, so, you in particular, I don't hold too much merit to when you make that claim.

Fact of the matter is, there will be disagreements. Admins need to be capable of being adults about it. There were never any personal attacks made on my part against Legba, and I often came to her defense or told others to back off. But just about every time people did not agree with her, she played victim, strawmanned their words, and then threatened to quit, quit, got snarky with, attacked them, or some combination of the group. Her over-the-top responses to people asking questions or discussing things she disagreed with does not forcible make what anyone else did wrong.

Quote:
I have often seen her appeal to admins and the membership regarding a questionable weave. Not many were willing to comment, saying it was her call as weave admin, but ready enough to come down on her when her judgement did not match theirs. Many of the questionable weaves went into the database BEFORE she took over the post, so she is not entirely responsible for all the things about the database that seem to make you so unhappy.


You're right. She is absolutely not responsible for many of the problems with the weavebase. The weaves admin, whoever that was, would inherit those, and I was very upfront and direct about this with her, many times. As soon as she took the job. You have absolutely no grounds to be lecturing me about what is attributable to her, as if I have acted like I don't understand. I know. Back when we got better, her and I talked at length on a couple occasions about the mess the things were already in and whether she should just grandfather it, perpetuate it, retroactively fix it.

People did try, privately, to discuss things with her. I did several times too, when she was new to the job and the BOD, a position I supported her on. The reason she got little feedback by the time you came around, is that after a few times it became obvious that when anyone disagreed with her, she got upset and martyred herself. This change in her behavior starting the same time as some things happened in her personal life that don't need discussing here. I do sympathize and have always said as much.

People did not have a hands-off approach to helping her. The feedback she often got was holistic. As in, "If you have a consistent way of dealing with weaves, you will not need to ask for help on every specific issue, or if you do, it will be easy. So let's figure that big picture out first." Instead, each time she asked for help, it became basically an opinion poll on the particular weaves. No one understood her criteria, so they couldn't work within it to help her. They couldn't help her on an issue-by-issue basis, and she could not tolerate a discussion about the bigger picture of what should or shouldn't be a weave.

I can remember once she asked for help, specifically tempered with a warning that she did not want any discussion except what she specifically asked for. Well, it's all related. Part of the disgruntlement became that she only wanted to hear supporting comments, or otherwise wanted everyone else to make decisions for her. At which point her duties were redundant and being done by vote.

I can recall at least 3 or 4 incidents where people tried to help her develop a framework for weaves, and I'm pretty sure there's 3 or 4 other times beyond those. Every single time, she stormed off and gave up. Sometimes she got mad without anyone even disagreeing. She'd abandon the conversation just by people asking questions about her criteria trying to understand them, because she was unable to explain them. Or, if she had them, at least couldn't explain them in a way anyone else could understand. I have not, to this day, understood her criteria or met anyone who did.

According to her, she was only continuing the standard set before her, nothing else. Soon after she became admin, people started commenting about how lax the weave standards were. People stopped even caring to submit new weaves 'cause of "the crap that's being passed off as a weave these days" made it irrelevant. I thought that was harsh, so I talked to her about it privately to head it off. She said she was doing things exactly as the admins before her had. So I pointed out, people completely out of the loop had noticed a change in what was being accepted (without knowing the admin had changed), so, if her goal was emulating past admins, to tighten down on her criteria. If that was her goal. Else, figure out what her criteria were. I said that I saw no need to continue something that did not make sense, she could rewrite the rules, as long as she could do them in a way that was consistent. She gave up on that, and on the next few tries.

I somewhat gave up even more after sometime this last year she made a comment about how she had asked for help, but no one had anything to say. Well, either we're saying too much, or not at all, but not both. Certainly many people tried, but she ran away any time people didn't immediately confirm what she wanted the way to be.

Much of this before you came along, and some of it in private. And, people are already walking on eggshells enough. So, not to brush off your words, but, I can only temper them by how well informed you are. Certainly not well enough to be suggesting what I am to blame for, how I acted, and what I need to do differently. Certainly not enough to be derailing threads publicly. I'm hardly the antagonist you make me out to be. If you want to discuss it further, I'm happy to elaborate in PM.

I don't need to "lay off" Legba 'cause I'm not attacking her. This is a discussion about weaves, and she is the most recent weaves admin. No one's attacking her, but her name is going to come up when you discuss policy, same as Tess's name came up ad-nauseum in the discussions following him stepping down, same as Kim's name came up after he stepped down, same as Blaise and Lorenzo's name came up after they stepped down. I don't think any of them are upset at me or others for mentioning them objectively.

Quote:
I, for one, will miss her as weave admin, I'm sorry she's gone.


I will miss her to, and I thank her for the work she put in, for as long as she did. When she picked up the job, no one else would touch it. It'll be hard to find a suitable replacement.

Joined: December 25, 2002
Posts: 237
Submissions: 34
Location: St. Albans, VT

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I don't really post all that often, mostly because I really don't like being dragged into all the adolescent drama that boards such as TRL and here tend to gravitate towards, but can someone please explain to me (without a complete disertation that borders on a Doctoral Thesis like some have a tendency to post)....

What exactly is wrong with the current definition of a weave as:
"A unique and indefinitely repeatable pattern of rings, characterized by the connections between rings, and containing only rings that serve to maintain the physical structure thereof or to connect an instance of the pattern to an adjacent instance."? (I should note that the entry in the MAIL glossary states at the end of this "Pending further discussion") and what the hell needs to be discussed?

IIRC, what Cynake posted as a weave reference...didn't that used to simply be called "Courdory" way back in the day? And how could it be called "Byzantine sheet" without a *single* unit of byzantine in the weave?


David Stous
Chief Maille Smith
Wolf's Den Armoury
St. Albans, Vermont
http://www.wolfsdenarmoury.com

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3141
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:05 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

wolfsden wrote:
What exactly is wrong with the current definition of a weave as:
"A unique and indefinitely repeatable pattern of rings, characterized by the connections between rings, and containing only rings that serve to maintain the physical structure thereof or to connect an instance of the pattern to an adjacent instance."? (I should note that the entry in the MAIL glossary states at the end of this "Pending further discussion") and what the hell needs to be discussed?


Well, aside from the obvious 'pending further discussion'... Sorry, couldn't resist... Coif LoL
Basically, that's a very 'abstract' definition... And Tess, sakredchao, and every weaves admin in the history of forever, has always striven (is that even a word?) for a way of 'classifying' weaves into a heirarchy...
And in order to classify cleanly, one must first have a solid definition of what you're classifying...

At least, that's how I see things.

wolfsden wrote:
IIRC, what Cynake posted as a weave reference...didn't that used to simply be called "Courdory" way back in the day? And how could it be called "Byzantine sheet" without a *single* unit of byzantine in the weave?


That's simple, weave submitters get to name it... I could submit a new weave and name it JPL Time Two... And it could be a Japanese Web Weave... I'm not saying I would, but I could...



Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1823
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:43 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

wolfsden wrote:
can someone please explain to me (without a complete disertation that borders on a Doctoral Thesis like some have a tendency to post)....


Y'know, I'd hope that's friendly teasing, but seeing as how you hang out on MWW with Legba and CW, it's hard not to interpret it as a cheap shot.

I was criticized already in this post for my opinion apparently carrying little weight because CW thinks I have no experience. And then when I pointed out I understood things very well, mocked by her in her quitting thread for it. And now again criticized for being too thorough.

*shrugs*. Frustrating, y'know?

Quote:
What exactly is wrong with the current definition of a weave as:


By observation, everyone reads that, everyone interprets it differently.

Some important questions can be drawn from this:

1) Is everything that repeats, a weave?
2) If so, if we try to document all of them, who would use that database?
3) Should any limitations beyond that be used?
4) What is the best way of categorizing, arranging, classifying, and qualifying a weave?
5) What criteria should be used?
6) For things that are not a weave, where do they best belong?

The definition you came across wasn't arrived at by some huge consensus. It was a quick little way one person wrote, offhand, as a glossary entry, describing to someone brand new to chainmail what a weave is.

The kind of quick blurb that replaces the conversation: "What is a 'weave'?", "Oh, well, it's kind of like a repeatable pattern of rings", "Oh I get it. Like a type of fabric?", "Sure."

Quote:
IIRC, what Cynake posted as a weave reference...didn't that used to simply be called "Courdory" way back in the day? And how could it be called "Byzantine sheet" without a *single* unit of byzantine in the weave?


Hrm. Was it called Courdory back in the day? No.

You are thinking of a weave called Gridlock. *Digs up the link for you*.. here: http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/subcat.cgi?key=80

Go right back to that post I made that you're referencing, and look at the difference between Gridlock and Byz Sheet (or, as it's officially named, "Turkish Sheet"). I actually spent a lot of time to take pictures and draw and label diagrams so that it'd be really easy for people to see the difference. There's a cross-section graphic I made, as well as photos of the real weaves.

How could it be called Byz sheet without an instance of Byz?

Hrm. First, it's officially called "Turkish Sheet", *digs that one up too*... http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/subcat.cgi?mode=weave&key=159

I call it "Byz Sheet" because Turkish is a specific expansion of Byz, and I had my article stub almost typed up before I ever noticed it. But, no matter, that's just nomenclature.

Turkish Sheet is to Byz, what Euro 4-1 is to Box. Make sense? If not...
Turkish Sheet is to Turkish Round, what, what Euro 4-1 is to Roundmaille. Make sense?

It's the sheet you get when you cut the tube lengthwise and lay it flat.

There's a very simple explanation, with lots of pictures, if you are interested. I took the time to write it up here: "Another Discovery: Byzantine Sheet Is (barely) Possible. (Pics++)"

If you're still curious about how it lacks a Byzantine unit, or its relationship to Byz, keep asking. Maybe someone else can tackle it better than I did.

Joined: October 19, 2009
Posts: 31
Submissions: 0
Location: Boston

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:18 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Quote:
I don't really post all that often, mostly because I really don't like being dragged into all the adolescent drama that boards such as TRL and here tend to gravitate towards, but can someone please explain to me (without a complete disertation that borders on a Doctoral Thesis like some have a tendency to post)....



Evidently, you DO enjoy “adolescent drama” and you are not doing yourself any service by implying otherwise.

If you have a point to make, and you’d like it to be taken seriously, the least you could do for yourself is to express it in a mature fashion. A far as I see, the only thing you’ve done here is make a thinly veiled display of e-pouting.

But let us assume I misunderstood (which can happen all too often online). Let us suppose that you are actually extremely serious about exploring the definition of a weave, you just chose your words poorly. Cynake took the time to answer you (and I don’t see a “Doctoral Thesis-length” post, so surely you should be able to read, digest and respond without being too intimidated by length, or whatnot).

Now that it has been established that the definition quoted is quite abstract and needs to be honed further, what is your response? Cynake listed some questions as a starting point, which appear pretty useful in improving the definition...and that was the point of your post, was it not?

Joined: March 20, 2008
Posts: 2009
Submissions: 57

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:37 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

This thread has evolved way past the point it was originally designed for, and should probably left to die, mostly it seems like bickering now, why don't we, if that is the intention, start a new thread debating new guidelines for defining a weave? If that is our intention here. Which seems to be the main valuable content left, coming from this thread. Coif Smiley

Joined: December 25, 2002
Posts: 237
Submissions: 34
Location: St. Albans, VT

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:17 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I completely agree. and a thread http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=8224 started October three years ago (and continued for over two years). Perhaps we should pick up where it left off?

D.


David Stous
Chief Maille Smith
Wolf's Den Armoury
St. Albans, Vermont
http://www.wolfsdenarmoury.com

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:43 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

oneringshortofafullcoil wrote:
This thread has evolved way past the point it was originally designed for, and should probably left to die, mostly it seems like bickering now, why don't we, if that is the intention, start a new thread debating new guidelines for defining a weave? If that is our intention here. Which seems to be the main valuable content left, coming from this thread. Coif Smiley


It evolved that way because CW and Wolfsden (among others) steered it that way. Unless you want to start censoring what people say and where they say it, these things will happen. But it is very disingenuous to head the conversation off in a certain direction, then complain when it goes in that direction. Unless of course, one's objective is simply to foment, rather than discuss.

-phong



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 2 of 3. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:48 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: