Unknown2007-08-06 19:53:07
I've recently noticed that the dates on ig help files were changed. Instead of using the GMT time they now show the IG date.
That's great and all.. but it also puts me before a problem:
-chelp communefavours
Composed by: Nejii
Composed on: 19th of Estar, 183 CE
To be favoured: Blancour
...
...
readlog serenwilde 0 0 blancour
2007/08/06 09:53:51 - Rika communefavoured Blancour for: bringing in bards and
scholars so we could obtain cultural centre.
Quite obviously, the dates don't match. I have -no- way of knowing now if Nejii edited the scroll before or after Rika favoured. I have no clue whether he should therefor be removed from the list or not.
And that's just an example. I can think of several more circumstances were I'd need to match scroll dates to log dates and depending on what happened first act differently.
So please could the OOC timestamp be included into the files again? Perhaps in brackets or something, it doesn't matter as long as it's there. It just makes things unecessarily difficult if the logs use one time convention and the scrolls another and I'm sure that wasn't intended with the change.
That's great and all.. but it also puts me before a problem:
QUOTE
-chelp communefavours
Composed by: Nejii
Composed on: 19th of Estar, 183 CE
To be favoured: Blancour
...
...
QUOTE
readlog serenwilde 0 0 blancour
2007/08/06 09:53:51 - Rika communefavoured Blancour for: bringing in bards and
scholars so we could obtain cultural centre.
Quite obviously, the dates don't match. I have -no- way of knowing now if Nejii edited the scroll before or after Rika favoured. I have no clue whether he should therefor be removed from the list or not.
And that's just an example. I can think of several more circumstances were I'd need to match scroll dates to log dates and depending on what happened first act differently.
So please could the OOC timestamp be included into the files again? Perhaps in brackets or something, it doesn't matter as long as it's there. It just makes things unecessarily difficult if the logs use one time convention and the scrolls another and I'm sure that wasn't intended with the change.
Theomar2007-08-06 20:01:07
DATE tells you the approximate time of GMT.
CODE
date 19 estar 183
Lusternian date 19 Estar, year 183 at midnight would be 8/6/2007 at 5:00
Lusternian date 19 Estar, year 183 at midnight would be 8/6/2007 at 5:00
Unknown2007-08-06 20:08:17
Hm, I didn't know that. Thanks. I guess you learn something new every day.
Still.. couldn't the GMT date be added in brackets? It -is- confusing. At least before 90% of Lusternian dates were in GMT so it made it easy to compare. Now it looks to be 50% GMT and 50% IG.
Still.. couldn't the GMT date be added in brackets? It -is- confusing. At least before 90% of Lusternian dates were in GMT so it made it easy to compare. Now it looks to be 50% GMT and 50% IG.
Unknown2007-08-06 20:20:24
Isn't the DATE function highly innacurate, especially at long times? It wouldn't matter for this one, but mrh. Thats my only concern.
Veonira2007-08-06 20:26:48
You could just be more specific in your favouring scroll so that you know if someone was already favoured for that thing . (At least that's what we do in Mag, like..."For defending Earth: Name, name, name")
Unknown2007-08-06 20:30:14
QUOTE(Veonira @ Aug 6 2007, 10:26 PM) 431981
You could just be more specific in your favouring scroll so that you know if someone was already favoured for that thing . (At least that's what we do in Mag, like..."For defending Earth: Name, name, name")
We do. But there are times when people receive two favours for the same thing.
Veonira2007-08-06 20:31:42
That happens to us too, *mutters about people not checking logs*
Anisu2007-08-06 20:58:47
QUOTE(shadow @ Aug 6 2007, 10:30 PM) 431982
We do. But there are times when people receive two favours for the same thing.
This is unavoidable, and people will do it even if you have both time stamps.
but you still have a tool with such time stamps
QUOTE
----------------------------------------------------------
Leader: Metea Modified: 2007/08/04 19:11
Name: Cityfavours Status: ongoing
Info:
Leader: Metea Modified: 2007/08/04 19:11
Name: Cityfavours Status: ongoing
Info:
Acrune2007-08-06 21:05:21
QUOTE(Dyr @ Aug 6 2007, 04:20 PM) 431976
Isn't the DATE function highly innacurate, especially at long times? It wouldn't matter for this one, but mrh. Thats my only concern.
Yes, I don't trust that at all
Unknown2007-08-07 00:36:15
Oh, I thought something looked different. Yes, the RL times were/are a nice convenience.