Iluvalar: I very much appreciate input from experienced programmers. I hope that you are not discouraged from contributing in general to Simutrans, either Standard, Experimental, or any other fork that you might wish to create.
However, in order to have a constructive dialogue, it is important (1) to be moderate in your tone and respectful in your content, (2) to engage in the substance of the responses made to you if you wish to disagree with somebody, (3) explain what you mean with sufficient precision when asked, (4) ensure that the degree of confidence with which you make any claim is commensurate with the degree of your understanding of the thing about which you are making the claim and your ability to communicate that understanding with commensurate precision, and (5) not make accusations that others are not acting in good faith without a seriously overwhelming basis (in which case, you should consider a report to a moderator in any event).
The reason that the discussion in this thread
was not constructive was because the above was not always observed.
For example, your references in this post
to "hiding the answer" or "refusing" to tell you the number of trips per month generated by a typical building (as you described it) infers bad faith without any basis for doing so. You had not, in fact, asked that specific question before. See (1) and (5) above.
In this post
, you did not engage in the substance of my response to what you wrote about what you believed would be a "sawtooth effect" in this
post: you repeated what you had earlier written on the subject without acknowledging my response to it (see (2)) or explaining how what you wrote related to the way that I described how the system actually worked ((3) and (4)).
I had asked in this
post whether you had tried testing the passenger generation system about which you were commenting yourself: you did not reply to that question (see (2)), but it later
became apparent that you had not, in fact, tested it, but that did not seem to diminish the stridency of your claims about how you thought that it would work (see (4)).
I pointed out in this
post that your understanding of the consequences of job slots not being entirely fulfilled for a short period (set out here
) was incorrect (and therefore that your claims about the adverse game-play consequences of what you thought would be a "sawtooth" effect were also not correct). Without acknowledging that (see (2)), you again wrote in this
post of businesses going bankrupt. When I pointed out
that I had already noted that there is and is proposed to be no mechanism for businesses to become bankrupt at all (let alone in consequence of a short-term shortage of workers of the sort that you appeared to envisage), you responded in this
post by setting out a proposed way of simulating such bankruptcies without explaining why such a system was necessary nor, more importantly, acknowledging that the lack of such a system at present means that the conclusions that you had already reached were not well founded (4).
I asked you in this
post to describe how your proposed system might work and fit in with the existing system and fulfil the design goals (already fulfilled by the present system) set out in the ante-penultimate paragraph of this
post, but you were unable to do so
, (3), which is inconsistent with the stridency of your claims that the system that you propose would be better than what already exists (4).
post, you wrote, "I gonna try to explain the statistical problem again. slowly," which is not respectful (see (1)) for reasons which I hope will be obvious, and likewise in this
post your statement that, "I feel just like Malcom in Jurassic park trying to explain chaos theory, statistical certainty and butterfly effects to people who don't understand such things. lol.". The implication that the problem was others' understanding rather than either your misunderstandings (and see also (4)) or incomplete explanations (3) is the problem here (you could perfectly well have been neutral, for example).
The overall impression created by the combination of the stridency of your statements, the sometimes disrespectful tone, the inability to explain with precision what you envisage, the failure to engage with responses in a number of instances and the somewhat odd sequence of events relating to business bankruptcies described above was that, on one interpretation, it appeared that you wished to persuade me and/or others that there were flaws in the existing system whether or not that was in fact the case in order to promote the alternative system that you were suggesting. I am not sure whether this impression is correct, and will give you the benefit of the doubt, but you should be aware of the sort of effect that the way in which you conducted the discussion is likely to have.
I have taken the time and trouble to set out - in some detail - the prerequisites to constructive discussion, the ways in which the problematic thread did not fulfil those prerequisites, with the result that the discussion there was not constructive, and the consequences thereof with the aim that you will be able in the future to engage in a thorough discussion of any topic without these problems recurring. I have done that because it is worthwhile to have people engaging in that sort of constructive discussion relating to features and development, as it helps to improve the overall result, and that is something that benefits all people who play Simutrans, whether Standard or Experimental. By contrast, unconstructive discussion has the opposite effect, as it takes time and effort away from development without contributing anything worthwhile in return.
I shall look forward to constructive dialogue with you in the future.