Longspeak, I've been meaning to tell you this but somehow didn't feel the opportunity to. I think part of the reason you were disenchanted with voting could be to do with the new system of voting you were experimenting with: the 5 criteria vote with breakdown attached. Personally, I like to be somewhat consistent in my votes and that's why I put up my own voting practice (well, not my own sub but my own voting scroll attached to Forganthus's sub titled "How I vote") but I'm never one for detailed breakdowns. I mean, if I've got some issue that I want to discuss in details then I just say it. But I don't have a personal thing for a criteria-based vote with detailed breakdown. Reminds me too much of assignment marking in uni and such and just too a 'scientific' approach for me (okay, so I'm not internally consistent given that I was the one so hung on the concept that my votes have to be 'consistent' from day to day). I don't know whether the same applies to you but I thought such an approach sapped too much energy out of you. In contrast, if you were to vote the way that you previously voted which was basically a numeric score plus whatever else you wanted to say about the sub, then voting would require less energy and 'effort'. Go to Comment
I can empathise, I too always want to provide constructive criticism and have a discussion going on but I learnt to go with my heart also with the Strolenati Sunday. What I mean by this is that if I have little to say about a particular sub, I don't force myself to say a lot- what I would be saying in such cases would probably be rubbish anyway. But I also set a bottomline of not just voting (okay there were past incidences of me doing so) but now at the bare minimum I would put in "what a score of xx said" (a practice I took from some other Strolenati, Cheka Man I think but not sure).
Anyway, back to this sub at hand, I think #2 from Scras is what we should be keeping in mind. If a particular sub doesn't chime with us enough that we can really put in constructive criticims, we shouldn't be stressed out all over it and then refrain from voting and commenting on it. To me, this somehow feels a little like we as commenter is so stressed out over the commenting over a particular sub that we are pulling our hairs out but we force a calm down on ourselves by running away. But such behaviour would be quite ridiculous if you look it from the common logic angle i.e shouldn't the author be more stressed than us over that? And if everyone engages in such behaviour, then we get little comments (which we do quite often at the Citadel). I just think (now that I'm thinking objectively) that the culprit of such behaviour- this high expectation we place on ourselves as a commenter, is sometimes a little excessive and we should from time to time cull it back to a more reasonable level.
Anyway, I'm rambling. I say comment and comment to the best possible length and depth that you can and learn to live with no more than that. Go to Comment
You're right. But I do think HOW matters as much as whether you participate or not. I have been very bad about voting because I find votes alone to be worthless. I don't want to receive only a vote, so I won't leave only a vote. But I have lacked the time to really offer useful commentary of my own. Maybe it's time to change that line of thought. Go to Comment
Moon, you're right and you're wrong. I'm not into the voting, but the 5-criteria didn't cause that. The 5-criteria was my attempt to *correct* that. I really don't like just leaving a vote. Feedback, comments, some form of discussion, sharing of ideas. That's what I want to see. But I was having trouble finding constructive feedback on many submissions. The result? Many subs read, very few votes, me not practicing what I preach. So the 5-criteria was a way of trying to find things to say, so that I could then vote.
Of course, not everyone wants the same sort of feedback, which I wasn't really taking into account. That's part - but only part - of why I haven't voted in a while. The main reasons though have no relevance here. Go to Comment
I like the description details and the way it looks like the program resembles a kid growing as it evolves. But how the program communicates? I mean if it is so evasive, I highly doubt that it would leave a port open for outside communication. Is it used only when you hack locally? I guess it just randomly attacks without any specific target in the system. Also can you explain some specifics? It leaves sensitive data alone in first version but is it because it cannot break encryption or is it just to avoid detection by avoiding data which monitored closely? What are the specific abilities? Go to Comment
If you don't use magic how else can you get rid of them? Lots of molative cocktails? A sack of flour laced with ? That would pierced and then swung in a circle overhead as the "powder" would fall over the swarm? Go to Comment
This sub actually actually came from a need in my novel. The military unit needed to be cut off long enough to make it vulnerable, but it had a support ship, a destroyer. An ice storm and terrorists are a minor concern to such a vessel, but reducing it from a flying destroyer to a handful of transport and gunship carry alls made more things to blow up, and easier things to blow up. Go to Comment