Where sound general policy conflicts with case by case common sense in SW

[SilentRuin]

Ok I get that Smiteworks has a policy of not looking at code that is not written in house. And as far as a general policy goes its wise and good stuff.

But if there is a history of user input in an extension that they wish to tap into because they wish to do something similar or the same - and the author gives them FULL permission to use in part or in entirety their code... then don't be blind to it in the face of general policy rules. They are general - not all encompassing. Use common sense. Of course you don't want to color a dev's code with someone else's perspective if they have not given you permission. But when they have?

Don't blindly stick to some policy that's reason for being does not apply.

Here, I'll get the ball rolling.

Dear Smiteworks,

You can use in part or in entirety any of the code listed in my signature - paid or free - as you see fit in any implementation or study of what is currently being done so you can do it better.

Signed SilentRuin

P.S. When you do implement something that has some extension already doing with years of user input - at least ASK if you can look. It will be better for you and your users. Nobody says you have to use any of it - but at least you get an idea of what is out there and tap into what users have asked for. (not so much applicable to my stuff as I pretty much made it the way I wanted - but for others VERY applicable in user input).

[Jiminimonka]

Makes sense. No need to reinvent the wheel.

[ddavison]

Thanks SilentRuin.

The policy is there in general to prevent accidentally copying someone's code or even to give an appearance of doing so. There are often competing philosophies about whether or not it even makes sense to develop something in-house that is already covered by a community solution. On one hand, we like that the community devs can service needs of the community often much faster than we can and any distribution or sales of those extensions on the FG Forge are a way to reward those devs for behavior that is beneficial to the community. On the other hand, spreading commonly desired functionality across multiple extensions is worse for users than a built-in solution. The maintenance and testing of functionality that gets moved to a built-in feature also becomes a commitment for us going forward and this likely results in a better customer experience.

I know that Moon Wizard likes to approach projects with a high-level view of what needs to be done and how it might apply to multiple rulesets or encompass multiple, related aspects. Some of our community devs have a similar mindset. There are often many ways to skin a cat and I tend to leave that up to the developer who will be doing the final implementation.

Your post is very welcomed, though, and is a clear example of how you always put the community first. I will be sure to share this with Moon Wizard for consideration on future development projects.

[SilentRuin]

Hmmm... could be argued I always put me first and the community just happens to benefit - but I like the altruistic twist

Personally, I would love not to have to maintain any extensions so I get that argument. And many things done by extensions could be done much more efficiently and better by FGU as they have engine access. And time, I believe, could be saved on looking at some things that are generically applicable across rulesets and seeing if the author is willing to have it incorporated into your code. As you guys are resource short, saving time is a plus. While most of my stuff is pretty specific because the rulesets don't really use CoreRPG as a gold standard (they do their own things) some extensions have immense value across them all. I recommend you guys look into Natural Selection as a prime candidate for that kind of functionality as just one example.

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out on this. What you do with your resources is of course your call and you will know the demands on them better than any of us on the outside.

[Kelrugem]

Moon Wizard also answered here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post675905

Regarding user input, Moon Wizard uses a good argument: As extension developers we usually just face power users, not the average user (who may never look into the forums or not even know of the forge page) Not that the feedback of "power users" is invalid, but I can understand that one wants to avoid adding new options/settings (I also find the options sometimes confusing and difficult to navigate, especially if I try to find one specific option)

Though maybe there is the possibility of adding advanced settings? I think reading about that some years ago

Besides that: The implementation of height is actually really good on the test server, and, as usual, things can always change, so, if you have a wish, you can say it (your post here is rather unspecific in that regard) And it is not even published on live yet