Re: Stuff worng in both Mr. McQuain's logs and on the checksheet


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ CS2704 Web Discussion Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by William D McQuain on May 03, 2001 at 08:39:02:

In Reply to: Re: Stuff worng in both Mr. McQuain's logs and on the checksheet posted by Jim Smith on May 02, 2001 at 12:25:05:

: The discussion board is hardly a forum for making
: important changes to the spec. If you're going
: to change the spec, change the spec.

One, this was not a change to the specification. Some students read something into the spec that was not there.

Second, the initial kill data file and log illustrated the officially correct behavior. Given that those were never changed, it would have been foolish to simply conclude that the log file in question was wrong.

If you didn't test with that data, that was your mistake. If you did test but didn't notice your results were different, that was also your mistake. If you did notice you got different results, even if you completely missed the discussion here, you should have raised the issue yourself, here or (better) in class.

: First of all, as you've seen, anybody can just type their name as William D. McQuain and post changes to the board. I somehow think that if somebody had fraudulently posted changes to the discussion board, your response would be along the lines of "you shouldn't believe everything you read on the message board - read the spec".

: Secondly, the post in question had the uninteresting subject line of "Re: Another Error or my Misinterpritation?". How is somebody
: casually reading the message board to know that
: this post contains an important change to the spec, especially if they are not specifically looking for one (and why should they?) The spec on the projects page says that it was last updated on April 5 - who would expect a change on April 17th, with no sort of announcement whatsoever except a reply on the crowded message board?

: And don't tell me that adding "Grendels will eat on a turn that they don't move" to the official spec, or adding an announcement on the "announcements" page, or even sending out a mass email to that effect would have taken more than 5 minutes.

: "Ample warning" or not, we're being graded on conformance with program behavior that is not part of the project's specification.

: This seems like a classic case of "It's easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa", and I've got to say that I would have expected a more professional approach to the situation.

: Your original annoucement.

: From the spec (emphasis added):
:


: "As a general rule, a predatory creature will only decide to consume another creature when the predatory creature first enters
: the square
. So, if an herbivore wanders into a square already holding a grendel, no harm is done (too dumb to be good food,
: if you like). Similarly, if a creature is created in a square containing another creature, neither will attack the other unless
: one (or both) leave that square and they subsequently converge."
:

: : I'm including the text of my post (note the date) regarding this issue. This was also discussed on the board on the 20th and again after that. Note also that the post and reply below refer to the original test kill data, not to any of the data that was posted later on, so there was ample warning about this issue.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ CS2704 Web Discussion Board ] [ FAQ ]