[Goober5000]

Ugh, I didn't have time to respond earlier, and now this thread has turned into more of a mess than when I left...

WMC, you seem to be confusing objective analysis for subjective opinion, and technical collaboration for political maneuvering.  I am not being hostile to you, and I am not playing politics or blowing smoke.  I'm trying to give correction so that your enthusiasm for the SCP can be applied productively.  Notice that nobody here has shot down the original idea; what Taylor and I are saying is that the way you implemented it is wrong.

You have made some great contributions to the project; scripting has turned out to be more flexible and feature-rich than I thought you'd have the patience for, and modular tables have been nothing short of amazing.  But you need to realize that there is a methodology that needs to be followed if a project is going to continue to grow and thrive as opposed to degenerating into a sloppy jumble of features.

I went ahead and implemented ship-copy-damage so that hopefully we can put an end to this.  The sexp does what it says on the tin; it copies all the hitpoints for both hull and subsystem from one ship to another.  It even works for modifying ships that haven't even arrived yet.  It doesn't modify any other ship variables (flags, orientation, etc.) because those are better handled by the FREDder and are much more predictable than damage.
http://fs2source.warpcore.org/exes/latest/20080312-Goober5000.7z

[WMCoolmon]

Frankly, Goober, I wish you had never posted.

Your post was brilliant. You painted me as a young upstart who needs the guidance of older, more experience coders, and in doing so, you cleanly sidestepped all of the awkward points and things that I had said about the implementation. And it looks like for now, you've gotten away with it; there's nothing that I can do, and I don't expect to leave the project over this.

But I'll never forgive you. I've always had this vision of the SCP as a place where ideas aren't always put into effect, but they are listened to. It's been someplace that I can talk with people who actually do coding for their day jobs, and I can expect to be treated, if not as an equal, but as someone who has enough intelligence and understanding that it's worth it for them to explain their point of view.

You've shattered that innocent idea that I've had of the SCP. It's no longer a place that I can come up with an idea that's surprisingly good; it's a place where that idea will get shot down because it's not coming from somebody older and more experienced. I'll let you have that world, Goober; but for me, I will never be able to proudly state that I'm a full member of the SCP ever again.

[WMCoolmon]

Having missed a class due to this crap last night, here's what I'm going to do -

Since my chief objection is that you decided to completely disregard my reasons and arguments that I explicitly specified and spent some time to make sure that they were really accurate, and instead generalize me with several negative insights based on your 'objective analysis' of my character...

I'm simply going to pretend that this discussion never happened and decide whether to implement the limbo code based on my own opinion of whether it's worth it or not. I gave you more than your fair chance to discuss this with me in a constructive manner. You can lock me out of SVN if you want to rock the boat some more.

[Aardwolf]

Wouldn't it be easier just to document the limbo script function and/or sexp with a note: "Does not work well with XXXX sexp"?

[WMCoolmon]

The affected code wouldn't just be an easily-classifiable group of SEXPs, so doing that wouldn't cover everything.