Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Centurian99 wrote:

coredump wrote:
I am not as concerned with the concept that John's statements will be in the next FAQ or not. I just want "The Game" to have some answers to rules questions that are 'official' so that disputes can be answered quickly and across stores/groups/etc.

If there is a repository for his rulings, it will likely become more 'official' even if GW doesn't say anything. And if the INAT FAQ starts to follow the same path.... golden.

That'll never happen. The Games Dev Studio has no interest in doing it, and they're the only ones who can make something official.

Maybe not, at least not at this stage. But they don't have to.

The biggest complaint about using Johns rulings is that a) they could be falsified, and b) they are not publicly available, so that makes them 'secret', and that would be unfair to use.

If the answers were publicly available, then folks would be able to see they were real, and would know what they were. I think that alone will go a long way to having people accept them as 'official' regardless of what GW states. Moreso, if there is a wiki/Q&Asite/whatever up and being updated, it makes it much easier for GW to give it the 'official' status at a later stage. (And it makes it easier/more likely that the CA people will work with US people to keep answers consistent....though that is apparently not an issue for much longer.)

Well lets get this Dakka Rules FAQ going! I would start it, but since I am a noob still, people probably wouldnt like that.

dashrendar wrote:Well lets get this Dakka Rules FAQ going! I would start it, but since I am a noob still, people probably wouldnt like that.

Well im just waiting for JOS and Yak to work out the details on their respective ends and then see what we can do on here to keep a list going and updated.

I'm just about caught up now. So we should probably figure out exactly how this is going to be done.

Oh hey!

This project totally slipped my mind (too many things on my plate!).


John, I assume that you're too busy to worry about maintaining a separate wiki here on Dakka (but let me know if you aren't), so as such I think the plan would be to have Marius be the 'point' man who has control over the wiki here at Dakka.


There are then a couple of ways I can see this proceeding:


A) He would take any rulings he sees posted here on Dakka and put them into our wiki article of 'John Spencer's 40K rulings' to which you could occasionally check out to make sure that nothing is fraudulent.

Of course he could also contact you every now and then for verification if he sees a new ruling that seems strange.


And/Or:


B) I could send you a copy of the INAT FAQ and you could look through it and simply send him/me a list of where your rulings differ from those we put into our FAQ.

That would really go a long way towards identifying where the differences between the two are, so we can potentially rectify some of those the next time we issue our FAQ.


Thoughts?

yay! lets get this going! I would be willing to help too if it is needed.

Simple Answer:

Unless its errata, No

A seems like the easiest way(for me), but B seems like the more thorough way. Let me run an idea past by boss at work and I'll get back to you.

Would it be possible for someone (Marius?) to get access to the internal Wiki? Or something similar?

I very highly doubt that GW will let an outsider anywhere NEAR their internal Wiki.

Lordhat wrote:I very highly doubt that GW will let an outsider anywhere NEAR their internal Wiki.

We actually discussed it, but it was a no-go for a couple of reasons. So far, with my workload, it hasn't been updated too much. Also there is no way to give someone 'read-only' access.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

Lordhat wrote:I very highly doubt that GW will let an outsider anywhere NEAR their internal Wiki.

We actually discussed it, but it was a no-go for a couple of reasons. So far, with my workload, it hasn't been updated too much. Also there is no way to give someone 'read-only' access.

No offence, but that's utter rubbish. There are THOUSANDS of ways to give someone "read only access". If there isn't I seriously question that you either a) Have a Wiki or b) Use a Half Decent Program for the Wiki.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

Lordhat wrote:I very highly doubt that GW will let an outsider anywhere NEAR their internal Wiki.

We actually discussed it, but it was a no-go for a couple of reasons. So far, with my workload, it hasn't been updated too much. Also there is no way to give someone 'read-only' access.

If you were willing, I could happily create a read only mirror of it here on dakka?

legoburner wrote:
If you were willing, I could happily create a read only mirror of it here on dakka?

That is the kind of thing I was thinking of, but didn't have the right terminology in by little brain....


Waaaagh!, please do us all a favor. Either be helpful/constructive, or don't post. John is trying to get his company to do these things in order to help the community. This is not his job, this is not a requirement for him (nor the company), so please leave your pejorative comments out of this thread.

As much as I welcome clarifications on rules by GW I think they need to be published somewhere in a clear and concise way.

While the e-mails might be consistent in answers they're still not widely available. Which means you get back to the problem occasionally suffered in 3rd edition where nobbers would turn up with reams of paper highlighted with the parts that help their army.

At the end of the day I'm not convinced that it makes games any more fair. While things might come up commonly on forums like this, they can occour rarely in games and can be solved by a roll of the D6.

coredump wrote:

legoburner wrote:
If you were willing, I could happily create a read only mirror of it here on dakka?

That is the kind of thing I was thinking of, but didn't have the right terminology in by little brain....


Waaaagh!, please do us all a favor. Either be helpful/constructive, or don't post. John is trying to get his company to do these things in order to help the community. This is not his job, this is not a requirement for him (nor the company), so please leave your pejorative comments out of this thread.

How is that Pejorative?

All I am asking for is Proof that he has a wiki since he is talking rubbish about not being able to have Read Only Access.

if you consider that Pejorative then perhaps the internet isn't the place for you....

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No offence, but that's utter rubbish. There are THOUSANDS of ways to give someone "read only access". If there isn't I seriously question that you either a) Have a Wiki or b) Use a Half Decent Program for the Wiki.

Oh, so you know exactly what wiki software we are using? Damn, you must be psychic. I don't even know the name of the software we are using, it was set up by someone else in the company. When I brought this issue up he stated there was no way to give read-only access with what we are using. As his is the expert, I take his word on it.

legoburner: I will check on the mirror idea.

Hymril: Baby steps. We're to the point where it is a serious part of my job. Next step is see if we can get them in print for the GTs, after that we will look into having access for everyone.

JohnOSpencer wrote:

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:No offence, but that's utter rubbish. There are THOUSANDS of ways to give someone "read only access". If there isn't I seriously question that you either a) Have a Wiki or b) Use a Half Decent Program for the Wiki.

Oh, so you know exactly what wiki software we are using? Damn, you must be psychic. I don't even know the name of the software we are using, it was set up by someone else in the company. When I brought this issue up he stated there was no way to give read-only access with what we are using. As his is the expert, I take his word on it.

legoburner: I will check on the mirror idea.

Hymril: Baby steps. We're to the point where it is a serious part of my job. Next step is see if we can get them in print for the GTs, after that we will look into having access for everyone.

Well then as an IT expert myself I will tell you now that guy played you for a fool.

Also, you must be the pride of GW, considering they let you go around insulting people.

If you really cant have read only access (unlike say, every single wiki I've ever seen) then may I suggest switching to a Wiki Software that does (presumably every other one)?

careful John, don't get pulled into a flame war, nor start one... I'm not the biggest fan of your rulings... but it is a place to start and would like to see this work.

WAAAAAGH is right. Every single wiki has the capability of being run as a read only. I believe this is a basic permissions issue can your administrator, who should presumably know what he is doing, can with a little work set it to read only if they want. It should only take a few lines of code. I'm sure a simple google search with the wiki software name and "permission" can fix this for you.

Some examples:
https://kb.iu.edu/data/auwj.html
http://www.dokuwiki.org/install:permissions

Waaaaaaagh! : whoa, easy there. You sound like you are picking a fight. I started this thread: dang it, no fighting.


Besides whatever Wiki the information may currently be on, its unlikely that would be in an acceptable format (the way data is organized there) that GW would allow it be viewed publicly.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:
Also, you must be the pride of GW, considering they let you go around insulting people.

If you really cant have read only access (unlike say, every single wiki I've ever seen) then may I suggest switching to a Wiki Software that does (presumably every other one)?

Did I actually insult you? No. I stated that you must be psychic to actually know what program we are using. If that equals and insult to you, then I apologize.

frgsinwntr wrote:WAAAAAGH is right. Every single wiki has the capability of being run as a read only. I believe this is a basic permissions issue can your administrator, who should presumably know what he is doing, can with a little work set it to read only if they want. It should only take a few lines of code. I'm sure a simple google search with the wiki software name and "permission" can fix this for you.

Not to dispute you, but he is not right. I only have two options: Believe that you and Waaaaagh are right (without knowing which program we are using), or believe that the person who set up the program is right. No offense to either of you, but you know which one I'm going with.

At this point our wiki is a very minor thing in what we do. There is no point in someone spending their time creating a new one with different software. Remember it was designed for internal use, and use by someone with no prior wiki editing experience (me).

Now as giving someone else access to the Wiki is not going to happen, does anyone have any other suggestions.

Or, you know, it's not a technical issue that stops them from opening read-only access to an internal company wiki and something to do with, I don't know, the fact that it's an internal company wiki?

Nurglitch wrote:Or, you know, it's not a technical issue that stops them from opening read-only access to an internal company wiki and something to do with, I don't know, the fact that it's an internal company wiki?

VPN.

next please.

And there is nothing stopping them making a publicly accessible read only wiki either.

I think you missed Nurglitch's point there Waaaaagh.

And I think you should just stop posting in general as all you seem interested in doing is trolling. Your comments aren't helpful and will more likely lead to John Spencer and GW just saying "screw it, we don't want to work with Dakka on getting a unified FAQ."

So unless you have something to actually contribute, please refrain from posting just to be contrary.

I just want to say thanks for taking the time to talk to us here John, and even if it might not be unanimous I believe most of us appreciate your efforts in creating an accessible DB of your answers.

As for the Wiki, I have no doubt that it'd be possible to share a read only Wiki with us, but that would require time and effort by the IT department that those in charge are unlikely to authorize, let alone request. Yes it would likely be fairly easy, but it assuredly is not a priority correlating past knowledge of GW and other large business policies.

That all being said, point still stands, and thanks John =)

P.S.: I've seen you post elsewhere on the forums too and that's nice to see; that you're here as just another one of us as well.

Ozymandias wrote:. Your comments aren't helpful and will more likely lead to John Spencer and GW just saying "screw it, we don't want to work with Dakka on getting a unified FAQ."

Oh noes?

All I am pointing out that it doesn't have to be high priority. Simply make a Public wiki on the main GW site that only John can edit, but everyone can read. That way people can check to see if their question has been asked.

That involves pretty much zero effort from the IT staff, provided GW have competent IT staff.

Waaagh, just go away please.

You input (really stretching the term here) doesn't seem to be welcome.

John and Yak,

Just let me know what you both come up with, and ill be happy to run with whatever roll you both decide on to go with.

I think it is awesome that John and GW are giving the consideration to all of this. This is something that will benifit us all as players and it is much appreciated.

Waggh.. my personal opinion is to just let this go until this gets off the ground. Once it is running in whatever form it takes, im sure suggestions can be made to improve whatever form that is, but at a later time.

For now, lets give the support needed to do this, rather then being inflamatory to those trying to get this off the ground.

As John said, he is not the IT guy on this.. no point arguing with him about it. Its like going after a layman for simply repeating verbatim what an expert on (name your topic here) said. Its rather pointless and does nothing to improve the situation.

Although this issue has now been dealt with, I thought I'd offer my input (and help things veer slightly off topic) just in case anybody thought there was truth in Waaaaaaagh's statements or wondered how real experts would deal with it.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:If you really cant have read only access (unlike say, every single wiki I've ever seen) then may I suggest switching to a Wiki Software that does (presumably every other one)?

Funny, WikiMatrix lists 17 different wiki varieties that dont allow read only access, almost all of which are targeted at small corporate installations or rapid deployments. Not to mention the possibility of it being a home grown solution that was made to bolt in to other resources. There are many different formatting modes and storage modes that can make porting content a real pain.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Or, you know, it's not a technical issue that stops them from opening read-only access to an internal company wiki and something to do with, I don't know, the fact that it's an internal company wiki?

VPN.

Plug holes into an internal company server/system from the big wide world? Have you never heard of security? Not to mention the bandwidth expense and technical overhead. Or as Nurglitch was implying, there are probably dozens of logistical and privacy related issues that are a factor.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Simply make a Public wiki on the main GW site that only John can edit, but everyone can read. That way people can check to see if their question has been asked. That involves pretty much zero effort from the IT staff, provided GW have competent IT staff.

'Simply' entails using clustered wiki software with all manner of caching (possibly requiring a separate squid server if we are talking about the traffic the main GW site gets), ensuring there is enough beef in the servers to handle the traffic, ensuring there is a proper backup procedure and system in place, ensuring the software is secure (not so easy with inherently insecure php either), ensuring the authentication process works properly, ensuring there is a security process in place, hoping the wiki software uses the same environment as the rest of the website or having to set up and manage a lot of server side redirection to work around it, getting caching working properly, making sure user interfaces are consistent, porting wiki content from a corporate focused wiki with limited capabilities to a full featured wiki, etc. It is a big job for any IT department, and to do it properly would probably cost a fair amount.

It took 2 months to get Dakka's wiki up and running from an off the shelf package, our traffic is an order of magnitude less than the main GW site, and I am definitely an expert in the area having managed websites that handle well over a million DB hits per hour. 'Simply' is one hell of an understatement.

everything Legoburner said...

legoburner wrote:blah blah blah

oh snap!