Community Projects

I still don't understand why so many community projects are bopping out lately of the nothingness. And beyond, why do they always have to stick on DOOM2 or DOOM and the vanilla engine?!

Why don't you guys think about something new, new resources, new concepts, to make a new thing? I was disappointed by the NDCP as I was disappointed by many maps from the CC2,... the only maps that were really impressive were those, that showed off something new and innovative.

Look, Zdoom effects are great and all - but if I wanted to play a game with OMG EFFECTS I'd boot up Doom 3 or any other current generation of game. I think the reason why projects like this are still popular is because we still appreciate Doom for what it always has been - instead of trying to build it into something it wasn't intended to become. Not to say what people are doing with source engines isn't important, but there' still plenty of room for people who just enjoy the old school play.

Well said.

Tormentor667 said:

And beyond, why do they always have to stick on DOOM2 or DOOM and the vanilla engine?!

I agree with you, but at the same time, no one likes a wad that needs a specific port that they may not have or may not be able to get running - so if it runs in vanilla doom anyone can run it in any port.

It does take out some of the great new possibilities, but it helps in general. Also, people tend to be more creative when they're limited. Give them all the effects possible and they'll probably overdo it.

I think it should always be a matter of choice, especially for the author(s) involved. However, for community projects, having something to agree upon is great, and keeping it simple by sticking to vanilla is a great way to open up accessibility to your .wad, both for authors and players, which should be the scope of a project like that. It should be both for a community of players and authors alike.

Nick Perrin said:

...but at the same time, no one likes a wad that needs a specific port that they may not have or may not be able to get running - so if it runs in vanilla doom anyone can run it in any port.

That's just plain wrong. Catering to the lowest common denominator will drive away as many potential users as doing something innovative that tries to use the enhanced features of some ports. Yes, there are some stubborn users who limit their view to one or 2 ports but why should these dictate what to use?

The sad fact is that most of these community megawads are all variations of the same theme. NDCP, although it has its share of good maps is just a random collection of maps with varying quality - but nothing particularly memorable. There are no ideas, no innovation because the makers were playing it safe.

As a whole I found NDCP just a retread of things that have been done well 10 years ago. The same is true of several other larger community projects. CC was something that couldn't convince me either and the only saving grace of CC2 was the excellent MAP07 which not surprisingly is a map that used Boom features to their fullest effect. The rest was just the typical mishmash - some good maps, some mediocre maps and some plain awful maps.

I really don't need another WAD that tries to be Memento Mori VI or VII. Why not try something different for a change?

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against vanilla projects if they are done well.
But the truly good and consistent vanilla projects I have seen recently were not done by large teams but by single persons or 2 person teams at most. Jan van der Veken's Classic Episode 2 comes to mind as the best example of them and Scythe II as well.

Be realistic; you know well a "community project" that aimed to be something "special" would take ages upon ages to produce, possibly never coming out. And by limiting the engine, you're not only affecting the players, more directly, you're affecting the designers.

Heh, I'll take Memento Mori XXVII any day, as long as a bunch of the maps are good!

That's why you've got individuals or small groups specializing in more specific things, because by all means this is a smallish community and you won't get twenty people working together if a project isn't following a pretty fundamental line; being quite akin to the game we all like in most respects, and not some variation that some of us prefer. Most people prefer to dedicate most of their time to their own projects, but will earnestly like to contribute to a community event, even if it isn't the main thing they had in mind.

Plus these more classic-aimed projects tend to be demo recording friendly to a degree (at the very least enginewise), and that's always an encouragement.

Good thing this stuff was moved off the other thread; the starter of the thread has proved pretty bitchy about discussion related to the direction of his project on his threads and it seemed quite ironic to have him starting a similar discussion on the thread for someone else's project.

Nick Perrin said:

Also, people tend to be more creative when they're limited. Give them all the effects possible and they'll probably overdo it.

I don't really care what port people use as long as they got something new for me to goughe at. But most wads released are depressingly similar.

There's still a lot left to make with Boom, Vanilla and whatever. But people don't take the time to investigate the possabilities. And if you think you need Zdoom, Eternity or Vavoom to name a few. Do so, if you got something out of the ordinary, I sure will play it.

As for the community projects, I didn't play more than 2 or three maps in them. Other than the commercial wads, I don't believe I've played through a single megawad (save for AV which I played through in Coop). While I've played Aliens TC, Twice Risen, RTC-3057, Action Doom, Zan Zan etc through on several occations. Some wads got it and you come back to them. But others are just more maps w/o any specific caracteristics and they are forgotten easily.

Addenum: There are some megawads that I keep coming back to over and over because they do have something. Darkening E2 and Eternal Doom are two favorits. But I have yet to manage to actually keep up the progress so I beat them. (Although I wish I had the first version of Darkening E2 that was released, since I consider the music much better in that version.)

Nick Perrin said:

It does take out some of the great new possibilities, but it helps in general. Also, people tend to be more creative when they're limited. Give them all the effects possible and they'll probably overdo it.

Truth.

That's a case to case scenario, and also a matter of preference. When I only worked on Vanilla Doom I got discouraged by the limits. When I started to work with Legacy I got a whole new level of freedom and it let me experiment in a fashion that better suited me.
Sure, Doom.exe alows for a lot of experimentation, but it's not for me.
Someone else will probably thrive in the confined limits that it offers.

There's an important distinction between community wads (e.g. the CCs and NDCP) and team projects (e.g. the MMs, TeamTNT's stuff). Both have their place and value.

A community wad has the benefit of encouraging relatively inexperienced mappers to get involved, to gain some support from other contributors, and the joy of seeing their map included together with the works of more established mappers. This environment has clearly led to some mappers making great strides forward. The nature of these projects means that the basic requirements need to be kept relatively simple, and prevents much thematic continuity.

A team project obviously allows for a greater degree of quality control, consistent theming and more ambitious use of features.

Grazza said:

There's an important distinction between community wads (e.g. the CCs and NDCP) and team projects (e.g. the MMs, TeamTNT's stuff). Both have their place and value.

A community wad has the benefit of encouraging relatively inexperienced mappers to get involved, to gain some support from other contributors, and the joy of seeing their map included together with the works of more established mappers. This environment has clearly led to some mappers making great strides forward. The nature of these projects means that the basic requirements need to be kept relatively simple, and prevents much thematic continuity.

A team project obviously allows for a greater degree of quality control, consistent theming and more ambitious use of features.

That's actually true, and I also understand the fact concerning the usage of sourceports, that this automatically limits the amount of mappers and participants but honestly, if I start a community project like the one, Paul Corfiatis did some days ago (this is also the reason why this discussion started), I really have to ask myself, why someone os limiting the community wad himself by rules like "Style must be similar to mine!", "Only DOOM2 effects"(although every port is capable of BOOM stuff), "Only DOOM2 textures/flats", "No additional stuff(music)" and other things?!

It is very possible to make an innovative and interesting map by even just adding a whole bunch of new textures, new music and sticking to BOOM capability, and that all works easily for any port in the world! (except vanilla, but who cares? Honestly!)

What I'd like to see is a community project, that shows new innovativ ideas, some things that haven't been seen a thousand times before in MM and CC and it is very possible to achieve this with BOOM and new Flats/Textures and a new music, if mappers concentrate on new ideas instead of building yet another boring community map. Think about BRPD's effort for the Community Chest 2 (MAP27 or so)... this is exactly what I'd have in mind, or maybe even more interesting and new stuff!

Nick Perrin said:

no one likes a wad that needs a specific port

I do. I prefer (G)Zdoom ones, but I'll happily play others too. If it's for a port I can't run (can't think of one mind) well tough. I miss out. But at least the project wasn't limited because of me.

it helps in general.

It both helps and hinders. It all depends on priorities. The things it helps with are pretty irrelevant to me. The things it hinders are not.

Also, people tend to be more creative when they're limited.

I disagree. More often, the only creativity we see is people using creative hacks and workarounds to emulate a feature that an advanced port does properly and natively. eg Voodoo doll script. It's cunning, it's clever, it's necessary to do multiple actions in a port without script support, but all those extra sectors, scrolling floors, line defs and dummy players can easily be replaced with a handful of lines of genuine scripting. Boom-style fake 3D bridges: again cunning and clever but an instantly rising/falling invisible sector made by self referencing lines and marked out by STEPTOP hanging in mid air is a clumsy hack and ugly compared to a real 3d floor.

I refuse to believe that a creative person becomes less so when they have a fuller toolkit available to them. I think they'd spend less time working out hacks to do what the engine doesn't really support and more time actually making the vision in their head a reality in the editor. That way they are being genuinely creative and making something new and interesting, not just trying to find innovative ways around a problem.

Perhaps that's the bottom line. A project that opts for the limits of Doom2 compatibility opts to accept problems and limits, strives to workaround them but cannot genuinely solve them. Working with an advanced port means many of those problems and restrictions have already been properly solved and so are no longer an issue. I can see the attraction of working within the limits, purely as an academic exercise but actually, I see little point in doing so when someone has already done a better job of really solving the problem and removing those limits.

Graf Zahl said:

That's just plain wrong. Catering to the lowest common denominator will drive away as many potential users as doing something innovative that tries to use the enhanced features of some ports.

Agreed. I'm one of the people who get driven away by the "Lowest Common Denominator" factor. It's one of the reasons I tend to tire of such projects quite quickly. Too often it's just well worn trick after well worn trick and before long I'm idclipping through the maps just to see if anything catches my eye before I go and try to find something more interesting and novel to play. I rarely play such a project properly from start to finish these days - and I'm quite sure I've missed some gems of maps, set mid-way through a megawad, as a result. However, most of the time I simply can't face yet another "creative" use of vanilla line types.

While the community's gotten to a point where you ought to be using a port with good boom support (seriously, theres no excuse to not have it), I'm going to be a radical purist and say that newer is not always better. The advantages of a 'greater toolkit' are very outweighed by several other factors. Forcing people to work with ZDoom, or god forbid GZDoom is not the way to make a decent community project. It requires knowledge of several more things than most mappers know, and to a fair number of people things like ACS actually can (and often do) detract from the gameplay experience. Stick with whats tried, true, and great. If not Vanilla, Boom.

pcorf's idea, however looked from its premise to be an excersize in limiting. Nobody wants to be confined nearly like that, because you cant work anywhere decently within those confines (esp the part about emulating his map style). Even if it was finished it would just feel like a huge wad of his, and probably worse than most of his works.

I guess this is one of the reasons why I like to make my own maps. Seeing hundreds of tech-bases, moon-bases, and other generic doom themes gets tiring. So I create what I would like to see in a map, because 'if you want something done right, do it yourself'.

Well spoken there Enjay.
Most comunity projects tend to be boring, just a set of random maps, no particular theme, and usually with the icon of sin at map 30 (that monster is one of the big lacks of DOOM 2, why to overuse it?).
If you know how to use the new features that source ports have to offer you can be far more creative than with vanilla exe (both for maps or creating new monsters).
But what bother me the most is the lack of consistence (plot/theme), that's what make them pointless to play for me. Demon Blaze Tc is a formidable example of what I consider an atractive comunity project.
I know that w/o any plot or theme it's easier to find people to contribute, and faster to finish, but in an extreme, Slige megawads are the fastest and easiest to complete but that doesn't make them any better. The quality of the comunity projects maps is usual average or over average, but they final result is still a collection of well designed but random maps. I'd prefer all that potential to be used something more interesting. The big legends (Batman DOOM, Action DOOM, Aliens Tc, Eternal DOOM, RTC-3057, and many more) in most cases follow a solid theme.

Vegeta said:

If you know how to use the new features that source ports have to offer you can be far more creative than with vanilla exe (both for maps or creating new monsters).

...

The big legends (Batman DOOM, Action DOOM, Aliens Tc, Eternal DOOM, RTC-3057, and many more)

Three of the five "big legends" you pick out are for vanilla Doom. Just thought I'd point that out. :)

And I don't really see that Eternal had much in the way of thematic consistency, other than the texture set and the fact that you often got a preview of the next map at the end of the previous one. This doesn't stop it being one of the all-time great Doom projects though.

I had to be more clare, I were talking about adding new things, not just a group of random maps with the original stock of textures/sprites.
Eternal DOOM was the first (I think) serious medieval project, has kick ass music, and by the time it was very advanced in terms of atmosphere, the random changes between base and medieval, and the repetition of the Icon of Sin are its weak points for me.

Vegeta said:

the random changes between base and medieval, and the repetition of the Icon of Sin are its weak points for me.

Which is the reason why I never really liked the later levels. The first episode up to MAP12 is excellent but the rest is quite uneven. It was still a major milestone for its time and far exceeds any of the projects that are being discussed in this thread in terms of ambition and quality.

I'd like to point out, agreing with those that complain on the lack of creativity, that we may be requesting a bit too much.
Let's not forget, Doom is only a hobby. Some people have enough ambition for a "bricks and stuff" map, others have enough strength to take up RL issues and do Daedalus at the same time. It's just how it works and we really can't be saying "people are uncreative" and such. One dislikes average maps-he doesn't plays them, like me. Simple.
For those who are seriously stabbed by the uncreativness-may it be your motivation to gap the holes of creativeness in Doom yourself ;)

Enjay said:
But at least the project wasn't limited because of me.

All projects are limited because of the mappers and because of the players, and anyone can start a project with whatever specifications they pull out of their ass. And how can you make a map that's for anything except by sticking to a base? How could a mapset jump from a full-featured Legacy map, to an elaborate ZDoom map, to a map specifically for Vavoom and then another that only runs with EDGE? And what if I wanted to submit a map for JHexen? Is DOOM 3 allowed as well? Hey, I have one for D&D here!

More often, the only creativity we see is people using creative hacks and workarounds to emulate a feature that an advanced port does properly and natively. eg Voodoo doll script. It's cunning, it's clever, it's necessary to do multiple actions in a port without script support, but all those extra sectors, scrolling floors, line defs and dummy players can easily be replaced with a handful of lines of genuine scripting. Boom-style fake 3D bridges: again cunning and clever but an instantly rising/falling invisible sector made by self referencing lines and marked out by STEPTOP hanging in mid air is a clumsy hack and ugly compared to a real 3d floor.

I kind of agree those hacks can be crappy; to me the best maps try to use the features of the engine as well as possible, including "hacks", if these work very well (voodoo dolls included.) Especially because mapping shouldn't be for features or tricks per se; at this point most of those have been exploited and no one is going to be seriously impressed. What matters is making a kickass map where people will feel impelled to jump in again to kick some monster ass, over and over.

I refuse to believe that a creative person becomes less so when they have a fuller toolkit available to them.

It doesn't matter what kit is used as long as one uses the one he prefers (one could have ample preferences too and try different things, or restrict oneself to something quite specific.) One might think a base with many "new" features will enhance creativity, another that such a base will break the game into something pointless and hacky.

Perhaps that's the bottom line. A project that opts for the limits of Doom2 compatibility opts to accept problems and limits, strives to workaround them but cannot genuinely solve them.

Only if they think that a map has to have special tricks or novelties to impress others, and/or that more "detail" is better. Otherwise they just happily map working with the framework they prefer and have chosen, to produce exciting and challenging maps for the game they like.

As for "accepting the limits"; lets not map at all, imagining a map is much less retrictive than that toil we call map editing!

I'm one of the people who get driven away by the "Lowest Common Denominator" factor. It's one of the reasons I tend to tire of such projects quite quickly. Too often it's just well worn trick after well worn trick and before long I'm idclipping through the maps just to see if anything catches my eye before I go and try to find something more interesting and novel to play. I rarely play such a project properly from start to finish these days - and I'm quite sure I've missed some gems of maps, set mid-way through a megawad, as a result. However, most of the time I simply can't face yet another "creative" use of vanilla line types.

That's the great thing around here; there's a space for everyone, since in this case I generally do exactly the opposite of what you do.

Bottom line is, without a doubt, who the fuck is somebody to tell another what project they should be starting? They can go do your own if they prefer otherwise. I wouldn't go to every group project that starts and tell them what engine they should be using, unless they asked perhaps.

myk said:

All projects are limited because of the mappers and because of the players, and anyone can start a project with whatever specifications they pull out of their ass. And how can you make a map that's for anything except by sticking to a base? How could a mapset jump from a full-featured Legacy map, to an elaborate ZDoom map, to a map specifically for Vavoom and then another that only runs with EDGE? And what if I wanted to submit a map for JHexen? Is DOOM 3 allowed as well? Hey, I have one for D&D here!

Sorry, you lost me there. All I was saying in the bit you quoted was if someone made a map for a port I can't run, it's my loss, not theirs and that I'm glad they made the WAD they wanted to even if I can't run it. Nothing more.

Of course a collaborative effort needs to establish a base. There'd be no point in one mapper mapping for EDGE and then handing it on to someone to continue in Zdoom format and then finally on to the D&D mapper to draw the whole thing out on a hex grid, scan it and upload it to /newstuff. I just find it very dull that, all too often IMO, the base that is picked is vanilla Doom. Sure it may seem easiest in some ways (in terms of getting a number of mappers together, or a potential audience), but if making a map set easily is your goal - well, it's not a particularly great goal is it?

Personally, I couldn't care less about making sure a WAD has the biggest possible audience. I map because I enjoy it. If other people enjoy my maps, that's great, I get a warm fuzzy feeling (really). If they don't or can't play them, that's just unfortunate, but I already pleased the guy who the mapping process was for - me! So the project has accomplished its main goal: me having fun. OK, so its no a particularly high ideal and of course, I accept that it's very different to the usual goals of a community WAD.

What matters is making a kickass map where people will feel impelled to jump in again to kick some monster ass, over and over.

Agreed. Some of my favourite maps are very vanilla but have that certain "kickass" factor. That doesn't alter the fact that editing for vanilla specifications is a severely limiting process and one which is no longer necessary - especially when you want to try and push your project on to places that vanilla doesn't readily want to go (but as I said before, I can understand the attraction of the challenge). Most of the limits people regularly try to get round in their vanilla editing have already been solved. Vanilla editing is a consideration if you want to get maximum audience, but as I and Graf both said such editing may also put people off so it's swings and roundabouts.

It doesn't matter what kit is used as long as one uses the one he prefers (one could have ample preferences too and try different things, or restrict oneself to something quite specific.) One might think a base with many "new" features will enhance creativity, another that such a base will break the game into something pointless and hacky.

Absolutely - as an individual, pick the right tool for the job. In the case of editing, part of the decision is the port you want to edit for and for the reasons why. Also, a fancy set of tools (ie a feature-filled port) does not make a good map. A crappy map is a crappy map regardless of what features it uses or abuses. Advanced features just allow for different ways that a map could be crappy. In fact, contrary to the often quoted propaganda about good, creative mappers being able to produce the best results in vanilla due to the restrictions, perhaps these good mappers should be showing the world how to really use the advanced features of ports rather than a bunch of n00bs making the scripting equivalent of 500 cybers and a BFG in a room decorated with Wolfenstein textures.

Only if they think that a map has to have special tricks or novelties to impress others, and/or that more "detail" is better. Otherwise they just happily map working with the framework they prefer and have chosen, to produce exciting and challenging maps for the game they like.

I'm not talking about people who feel that they need to impress. They are just sad sorry little men who need to go outside a bit more and maybe grow a pair whilst they're at it, or something. If they need to impress an online community of gamers dedicated to a 12 year old game to feel good about themselves, they need a psychiatrist, not a good online review. I'm talking about the way people hack around to achieve an often substandard, kludgey version of a feature that's already implemented properly elsewhere just because they were keeping it vanilla. That seems silly to me - or that their priority may have been something other than getting the best possible result like, for example, compatibility over quality.

As for "accepting the limits"; lets not map at all, imagining a map is much less retrictive than that toil we call map editing!

Now you're just being silly. Obviously I'm talking about the sphere of mapping - where the whole point is to produce a map. Of course you have to accept limits - but why accept more than is necessary; especially if you want to achieve things that certain ports allow, but you disallow them for yourself because you feel the need to keep it vanilla?

That's the great thing around here; there's a space for everyone, since in this case I generally do exactly the opposite of what you do.

And that is the great thing. Room for everyone - long may it stay that way.

Bottom line is, without a doubt, who the fuck is somebody to tell another what project they should be starting? They can go do your own if they prefer otherwise. I wouldn't go to every group project that starts and tell them what engine they should be using, unless they asked perhaps.

I hope I didn't come across as telling anyone what they should be using. That's down to them. However, I do share the sentiments of the original post in this topic: I find it disappointing and dull that so many community projects start up with the goal of restricting themselves to vanilla mapping standards when so much more is available. This strange notion that it needs to be vanilla if it's a collaborative effort makes no sense to me. It's been enough to stop me contributing to a number of projects and for me not to play them fully when they come out.

One of the reasons often given for such projects being vanilla is that they are being done for maximum consumption - for the community - so that anyone and everyone can map for or play it. I think it is worth pointing out that this decision could actually be turning away some members of the community and that possibly the community as a whole could be getting a lesser project as a result too. So perhaps the decision is actually counter-productive despite the fact it seems that it should be satisfying the goals.

I personally have only one single preference for a port; No OPEN GL. I hate how OpenGL-ed ports make doom look. It becomes blurry, and all the sprites looks like flat pieces of paper. Yes, one might say that :you can go download the 3d mdls", true, but I like to stick to doom as it how it originally is, and only expand on it without taking out all the feel of the old doom. Hey dont get me wrong, I love new features, but I definitely dont think its all that necessary as long as you have a decent toolkit. Why reinvent the wheel. The best example I could give of reinventing doom is Doom 3, i'm sorry for saying this to some of you, but that game was a load of BS. It looked AWESOME, and there is no doubt about it, but in the end, it's just Half Life on steroids with the title DOOM stapled on to it. The standards of gaming has changed drastically since Doom came out, but the reason we all play doom is because we still think it's the masterpiece of gaming, even after over a decade.

Although I do see some pretty crappy mods, maps, and community projects popping up. For many of these people, it's their first project, and you cant expect them to make something all out wonderful their first time. I've seen really awful maps so maybe my standards for really low. I just like a simple map, with the same Doom 2 feeling (running around and shooting hordes of stupid badguys).

I personally love both new and old ideas. I've seen some pretty crazy and creative doom maps, Like Zbattleship, it was awesome (simple, but plenty good enough for it's purpose). My favorite wad ever was Ghost Busters Doom2 by Scuba Steve, though I dont think he's working on it anymore(?). It has both new ideas, and retains the old feeling of doom 2 with its simple maps (none of those 100,000 sector maps that crashes the computer) and clever placement of things.

In the end, I dont think it matters what port one uses. A creative person will create something creative no matter what port they use, and an uncreative preson will make peices of crap no matter how many features and ACS scripts you give them. Com'on, Doom is for fun, whatever the map makers think is fun, is really up to them. The bottom line is, if you dont like their project, you don't have to join. If you dont like the product, you dont have to play it.

The simpler the concept the greater amount of people you'll attract, which increases the chance of release. By requiring skill with a particular port you limit who can contribute. Making a vanilla map for limitless engine is a lot less daunting to a new mapper.

Would RTC-3057 or kdizd work as community projects? unlikely.

The community lacks sufficient texture and sprite artists to create brand new worlds. And megawads aren't the best place for a consistant theme* unless it's tightly controlled. Community wads tend to be more relaxed projects.



*Batman doom would be a good exception

Ezxariarch said:

OpenGL ... It becomes blurry

Not if you choose GL_NEAREST as your filter string (or "None", or however the GL port in question describes this option). And some offer bumpmapping too, so you can have it both pixelated and grainy if you want.

Enjay said:
Of course you have to accept limits - but why accept more than is necessary; especially if you want to achieve things that certain ports allow, but you disallow them for yourself because you feel the need to keep it vanilla?

My point is that the vanilla limitation issue doesn't have an absolute value at all. If someone wants to achieve a map that does things like Boom or ZDoom they should use that, but the fact that something is more limited than another isn't by any means the only consideration to take. Plus, "limited" in features... in functionality it might not be. If one wants good and assured demo support, Doom and Boom are less limited than all other engines, or similarly, if one wants straightforward action (basic) Doom doesn't leave you wanting.

I hope I didn't come across as telling anyone what they should be using.

Not you, since you posted in the context of the established discussion; I quoted your post because it was juicy enough to inspire the things I said. But that was a separate closing paragraph in general and related to the fact that this discussion started in a project's thread initially. And not only that, as it counts in general when someone presents a project.

Innovators v. Purists : Round 673

• purists: purists rool innovators drool go play half life 2 moron lol
• innovators: lol u fags stuck in da dark agez play something less boring grandad!!1

Oh seriously come on guys this argument has been done a million times before. I recall it particularly flared up when CC2 came out. It's obvious both sides are convinced they are right, the other is wrong, and nobody is going to change anyone else's mind!

Can we just agree to disagree and stay out of each others' threads so to avoid having to have two copies of the forums to segregate the factions..?

RjY said:
Can we just agree to disagree and stay out of each others' threads so to avoid having to have two copies of the forums to segregate the factions..?

Right; and it's not even necessary to stay out of the threads, as long as we don't go there to sell our ways or preach our path (which is what insecure people do, anyway.)

RjY said:

Oh seriously come on guys...

If that was aimed at Myk and I at all (I'm not sure that it was), then I feel we're having a discussion rather than an argument. Despite obvious differences on this issue, I actually don't think our basic sentiments are too far from each other.