User blog comment:SupcommMonroee/Suppy Super Post Alpha - The Total Reconstruction/@comment-4844180-20131217164533

I'll do all of my opposing points in the order you did yours, roughly. So first: the summary points:

1: I don't see how drastically reducing the scale of territory helps anything. Sure if you want to do it to your own things but I am content with my things staying as they are.

2: I don't want the distance scale to be changed. There are no problems with the FTL travel we have. We can set limits already, I'm sure Mr.Robbo and others who look at this sort of thing can find ways to limit it easier than making it actually work. No need to handwave it, the articles are already there.

3: Reducing numbers... Again, I don't see what the problem is with having the large numbers, especially when it is with the larger territories and distances. I simply don't see a need or personal want for scaling down.

Next, your ideal model. I know parts are only to yourself and collaborators but I'll put my opinions on the more spanning ones.

1 & 2: They aren't relevant to me. I have no chain of command articles as of yet and they would be covered in other sections. The articles made useless is fair enough if changes go through.

3: I'm already doing this. The only problem is my procrastination, which I do a lot of.

4: I'm sure a paragraph underneath the link on informational articles is fine. Getting to every system article from one page? Don't think so. There will be too many links for one navbox. It will look too dense or large for any good.

5: I do not agree with this. I do have most of my work in Andromeda, but having a set species be a precursor to a whole set of things annoys me a little as they could have came about in different ways or simply some might want to leave it unknown.

5: I haven't read up on the Kklxin threat and my ideas about the present day are at that thread.

6: I don't mind what happens to Sol.

7: This should already be happening, but along with an abridged version I think a detailed version should at least be allowed alongside.

8: You can work on what you want to. Some territories won't be so important and stories usually don't cover every single location so I think it's ok to miss out a few. Few being a relative term and it might just be that you want to focus on some areas more than others for larger civilisations.

9: The Galactic Senate shouldn't affect me. Meh.

10: Works should have a history and mine are able to be parallel to other histories. Once again procrastination strikes as I need to complete the history of my things, but a set date (namely 2000AD) will be noted along with the calendar and it's information.

11: This is just repeated from the summary, so look up there if you want to see the same reply.

12: Do that if you want to, but I like how the distance affects my things. The Cannak are ruined and unable to get decent help, the Avetza barely make contact before destruction, the Nuuska are too widespread for a working government and the Estin have many cultures that have split off because of it.

Mini-purge plan.

No.

I don't agree with this. The guides can be useful to others who learn and "get stuff" by doing things that way.

I prefer the archiving as we can see what stuff was like earlier and some ideas can be salvaged.

I do agree a bit with the third point. We should be concise enough in the main section, although fleshing out on that wouldn't hurt for the guides and such.

End notes.

I don't see the problem here.

If you want to discuss back, then reply.

I'll post again if I see relevant changes.

I think that's it, thank you for reading. :)