Things continue
This is Steven Petrick posting.
Work continues apace on various projects.
Reports are coming in still on things to be corrected in the Klingon Master Starship Book, and sometimes as I peruse a bit of it, something hits me that should have been done before. An example is created by the (now) three different Klingon carrier pods (P-H5, P-V7, P-M11), three different tugs (Tug-A/T7, Tug-B/T6, B10T), and three different light tactical transports (since their D5G and DWG are also LTTs), which makes for 27 different carrier tugs (and that is ignoring cases like a Tug-A with a P-M11 pod and a P-B4 pod).
At least (so far) none of the checkers has found a problem with the new "Carrier Escort and Fighter" tables. Fully integrating those and trying to look more closely at what escorts are available when and in what numbers, and also allowing for new developments in doctrine (the E4V also being the G4V, and requiring an escort as an E4V, but not requiring buy might have an escort as a G4V for example).
As I am waiting on reports, I have started gathering the various parts for the Romulan Master Starship Book. This does not mean that it will be the next book, but it seems like it is a good idea to take some time to gather all the parts of the different empires in one place for future progress. (Maybe the Seltorians will be next . . . The Paravians and Carnivons would certainly be the easiest to do just now, the Vudar and Jindarians not much harder. Maybe the Frax would be acceptable. I am not looking forward to the Orions because of all the different Cartels, and so on.)
I am also doing odds and ends for the next Captain's Log. In some ways, parts of it are making me ill. People who submitted battle group set ups, but have not sent in their tactics yet (or asked for an extension) despite the deadline be passed. Also I usually try to send the tactics back out to the authors after I have formatted their submission. For some reason this time around everyone, it seems, who has submitted a battle group has taken the formatted text I sent them for review and commented "I have made a few corrections." This is driving me crazy as it increases the workload tremendously. Please do not get me wrong, corrections is precisely the reason I send their formatted text back to them. I am not perfect, I can (and have) misspelled words, or not gotten the tactical point they were trying to make and my editing changed what was intended. So, yes, that does need correction. The problem is that they are not perfect either, and by sending me the whole document back with the casual note that they did a few edits and corrections, I am forced to re-edit the whole document from start. The problem is that each time it goes through the process, new mistakes creep in. Jean Sexton has decreed that any number greater than nine has to use numerals, and any number less than 10 has to be spelled out. And not all of our submitters know this, and use numbers in their edits, which I have to read to find. Then there are the standard human typos ("their" instead of "there" or vice versa, "for" instead of "four," and so on). So I cannot just shrug when someone announces they "made a few corrections," I have to re-edit the whole document because I have no idea what was changed, but am responsible for everyone's typos.
I know some would say that turnabout is fair play, i.e., I did not send them a notice of what I changed in their original prose, but I am not making a few "minor corrections." I usually wind up making major corrections to fit "our" style for the article.
It would help a lot, if "minor corrections" are made, to mark the correction so that it can be seen. Colorizing whatever you correct, or at least underscoring what you changed so that I can find the change without having to re-read the entire document. It would probably (the way it is going this time) save me more than a day's work not having to re-edit every article looking for minor changes.
Work continues apace on various projects.
Reports are coming in still on things to be corrected in the Klingon Master Starship Book, and sometimes as I peruse a bit of it, something hits me that should have been done before. An example is created by the (now) three different Klingon carrier pods (P-H5, P-V7, P-M11), three different tugs (Tug-A/T7, Tug-B/T6, B10T), and three different light tactical transports (since their D5G and DWG are also LTTs), which makes for 27 different carrier tugs (and that is ignoring cases like a Tug-A with a P-M11 pod and a P-B4 pod).
At least (so far) none of the checkers has found a problem with the new "Carrier Escort and Fighter" tables. Fully integrating those and trying to look more closely at what escorts are available when and in what numbers, and also allowing for new developments in doctrine (the E4V also being the G4V, and requiring an escort as an E4V, but not requiring buy might have an escort as a G4V for example).
As I am waiting on reports, I have started gathering the various parts for the Romulan Master Starship Book. This does not mean that it will be the next book, but it seems like it is a good idea to take some time to gather all the parts of the different empires in one place for future progress. (Maybe the Seltorians will be next . . . The Paravians and Carnivons would certainly be the easiest to do just now, the Vudar and Jindarians not much harder. Maybe the Frax would be acceptable. I am not looking forward to the Orions because of all the different Cartels, and so on.)
I am also doing odds and ends for the next Captain's Log. In some ways, parts of it are making me ill. People who submitted battle group set ups, but have not sent in their tactics yet (or asked for an extension) despite the deadline be passed. Also I usually try to send the tactics back out to the authors after I have formatted their submission. For some reason this time around everyone, it seems, who has submitted a battle group has taken the formatted text I sent them for review and commented "I have made a few corrections." This is driving me crazy as it increases the workload tremendously. Please do not get me wrong, corrections is precisely the reason I send their formatted text back to them. I am not perfect, I can (and have) misspelled words, or not gotten the tactical point they were trying to make and my editing changed what was intended. So, yes, that does need correction. The problem is that they are not perfect either, and by sending me the whole document back with the casual note that they did a few edits and corrections, I am forced to re-edit the whole document from start. The problem is that each time it goes through the process, new mistakes creep in. Jean Sexton has decreed that any number greater than nine has to use numerals, and any number less than 10 has to be spelled out. And not all of our submitters know this, and use numbers in their edits, which I have to read to find. Then there are the standard human typos ("their" instead of "there" or vice versa, "for" instead of "four," and so on). So I cannot just shrug when someone announces they "made a few corrections," I have to re-edit the whole document because I have no idea what was changed, but am responsible for everyone's typos.
I know some would say that turnabout is fair play, i.e., I did not send them a notice of what I changed in their original prose, but I am not making a few "minor corrections." I usually wind up making major corrections to fit "our" style for the article.
It would help a lot, if "minor corrections" are made, to mark the correction so that it can be seen. Colorizing whatever you correct, or at least underscoring what you changed so that I can find the change without having to re-read the entire document. It would probably (the way it is going this time) save me more than a day's work not having to re-edit every article looking for minor changes.
posted by Federation Commander at 3:49 PM
<< Home