Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> >I honestly don't give a pair
> >of dingo's kidneys about what the rules will ultimately be
>
> Don't beat about the bush, Christoph. What do you really think? :-)

Exactly what I already wrote: That this whole rules-details discussion is
unsuited to obtain a common-sense driven atmosphere in the IRTC.

So I see not the slightest sense in me adding even more to that details
discussion.

I'm sure there is a common consensus that we don't want the IRTC to be an
absolute "purist" competition (*), nor do we want it to be a generic digital
arts competition. We want it to be a 3D rendering competition (**).

Whatever actual wording is chosen, it will not be able to do this common
consensus full justice. So just pick *some* wording, and instead of trying to
make it airtight, allow some room for people to breathe, so they can *live*
that "common-sense consensus".

(* In this context, I do acknowledge that a proposal was made for a "purist"
sub-competition; however, even this does not seem to go against the presumed
common consensus.)

(** It is not clear to me whether the common consensus covers 3D rendering in
general, or just raytracing, or whether there is actually disagreement; this
issue - but I think only this one - needs to be sorted out, and if there is
indeed disagreement that cannot be settled, someone will need to make a
decision.)

Post a reply to this message