Xenharmonic Wiki:Cross-platform dialogue: Difference between revisions

Line 120:

General situation:

1. Yes, we're all pretty unhappy POTE was removed site-wide without asking us.

# Yes, we're all pretty unhappy POTE was removed site-wide without asking us.

2. Please don't make these kinds of changes unilaterally without asking us first.

# Please don't make these kinds of changes unilaterally without asking us first.

3. I'm happy to talk about the math, but that isn't what this is about. POTE may or may not be the best tuning, but it's still useful for what it is - even if partly for historical reasons - and it's information we want to have available.

# I'm happy to talk about the math, but that isn't what this is about. POTE may or may not be the best tuning, but it's still useful for what it is - even if partly for historical reasons - and it's information we want to have available.

4. Even if you *do* come up with something which is better: don't just remove the previous thing from the entire Wiki, unless you are sure the people who wrote the previous thing are on board and happy having their work deleted!

# Even if you *do* come up with something which is better: don't just remove the previous thing from the entire Wiki, unless you are sure the people who wrote the previous thing are on board and happy having their work deleted!

Moderation:

1. I think there is no point locking more pages. We've reached a tipping point. Either we can work together or we can't.

# I think there is no point locking more pages. We've reached a tipping point. Either we can work together or we can't.

2. There is a fairly broad consensus from people involved in this 15-20+ years that these site-wide breaking changes are destructive to the theory we were trying to build. Maybe that is worth pondering.

# There is a fairly broad consensus from people involved in this 15-20+ years that these site-wide breaking changes are destructive to the theory we were trying to build. Maybe that is worth pondering.

3. This is the only place all this theory is stored besides forum posts. Whenever you delete stuff from the Wiki, most of the time it isn't preserved anywhere else except a handful of forum posts and in our heads.

# This is the only place all this theory is stored besides forum posts. Whenever you delete stuff from the Wiki, most of the time it isn't preserved anywhere else except a handful of forum posts and in our heads.

4. People are asking me to lock pages because it's been many times that we've asked not to delete stuff from all across the wiki. I guess the clear answer from you all, after hearing us ask it a lot, is "no." You know we feel this way but you have strong opinions and you want us to re-justify stuff to you or else you will delete it. OK.

# People are asking me to lock pages because it's been many times that we've asked not to delete stuff from all across the wiki. I guess the clear answer from you all, after hearing us ask it a lot, is "no." You know we feel this way but you have strong opinions and you want us to re-justify stuff to you or else you will delete it. OK.

5. We're a bunch of old geezers at this point. If you simply feel your theory is better and you want to delete the parts of ours that you don't like, we just don't have the energy to fight. There are too many of you and the main guy driving our theory is dead. What choice do we have?

# We're a bunch of old geezers at this point. If you simply feel your theory is better and you want to delete the parts of ours that you don't like, we just don't have the energy to fight. There are too many of you and the main guy driving our theory is dead. What choice do we have?

6. For what it's worth, I genuinely like lots of the ideas that you have. I think Inthar's ideas about MOS are great. I try to stay caught up with it. It would be nice to somehow evolve that stuff without destroying our stuff. But if our ideas can't be preserved here, we'll have to try to preserve them somewhere else.

# For what it's worth, I genuinely like lots of the ideas that you have. I think Inthar's ideas about MOS are great. I try to stay caught up with it. It would be nice to somehow evolve that stuff without destroying our stuff. But if our ideas can't be preserved here, we'll have to try to preserve them somewhere else.

The actual math is neither here nor there, but FWIW, I'm the one who put together KE, WE, TWE, all of that to begin with, so I'm fairly familiar with it. Yes, I get that CTE has this claim on-paper that it's the closest point to the JIP with pure octaves and the TE norm. It also weights 16/13 higher than 6/5, because 16/13 happens to be octave-equivalent to 13/1. This has all been talked about in the past many times - if this is what you want, great, but it isn't the one-size-fits-all solution, and we generally prefer tunings like POTE, KE, etc.

Thanks.

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 General situation:
-. Yes, we're all pretty unhappy POTE was removed site-wide without asking us.
+# Yes, we're all pretty unhappy POTE was removed site-wide without asking us.
-. Please don't make these kinds of changes unilaterally without asking us first.
+# Please don't make these kinds of changes unilaterally without asking us first.
-. I'm happy to talk about the math, but that isn't what this is about. POTE may or may not be the best tuning, but it's still useful for what it is - even if partly for historical reasons - and it's information we want to have available.
+# I'm happy to talk about the math, but that isn't what this is about. POTE may or may not be the best tuning, but it's still useful for what it is - even if partly for historical reasons - and it's information we want to have available.
-. Even if you *do* come up with something which is better: don't just remove the previous thing from the entire Wiki, unless you are sure the people who wrote the previous thing are on board and happy having their work deleted!
+# Even if you *do* come up with something which is better: don't just remove the previous thing from the entire Wiki, unless you are sure the people who wrote the previous thing are on board and happy having their work deleted!
 Moderation:
-. I think there is no point locking more pages. We've reached a tipping point. Either we can work together or we can't.
+# I think there is no point locking more pages. We've reached a tipping point. Either we can work together or we can't.
-. There is a fairly broad consensus from people involved in this 15-20+ years that these site-wide breaking changes are destructive to the theory we were trying to build. Maybe that is worth pondering.
+# There is a fairly broad consensus from people involved in this 15-20+ years that these site-wide breaking changes are destructive to the theory we were trying to build. Maybe that is worth pondering.
-. This is the only place all this theory is stored besides forum posts. Whenever you delete stuff from the Wiki, most of the time it isn't preserved anywhere else except a handful of forum posts and in our heads.
+# This is the only place all this theory is stored besides forum posts. Whenever you delete stuff from the Wiki, most of the time it isn't preserved anywhere else except a handful of forum posts and in our heads.
-. People are asking me to lock pages because it's been many times that we've asked not to delete stuff from all across the wiki. I guess the clear answer from you all, after hearing us ask it a lot, is "no." You know we feel this way but you have strong opinions and you want us to re-justify stuff to you or else you will delete it. OK.
+# People are asking me to lock pages because it's been many times that we've asked not to delete stuff from all across the wiki. I guess the clear answer from you all, after hearing us ask it a lot, is "no." You know we feel this way but you have strong opinions and you want us to re-justify stuff to you or else you will delete it. OK.
-. We're a bunch of old geezers at this point. If you simply feel your theory is better and you want to delete the parts of ours that you don't like, we just don't have the energy to fight. There are too many of you and the main guy driving our theory is dead. What choice do we have?
+# We're a bunch of old geezers at this point. If you simply feel your theory is better and you want to delete the parts of ours that you don't like, we just don't have the energy to fight. There are too many of you and the main guy driving our theory is dead. What choice do we have?
-. For what it's worth, I genuinely like lots of the ideas that you have. I think Inthar's ideas about MOS are great. I try to stay caught up with it. It would be nice to somehow evolve that stuff without destroying our stuff. But if our ideas can't be preserved here, we'll have to try to preserve them somewhere else.
+# For what it's worth, I genuinely like lots of the ideas that you have. I think Inthar's ideas about MOS are great. I try to stay caught up with it. It would be nice to somehow evolve that stuff without destroying our stuff. But if our ideas can't be preserved here, we'll have to try to preserve them somewhere else.
 The actual math is neither here nor there, but FWIW, I'm the one who put together KE, WE, TWE, all of that to begin with, so I'm fairly familiar with it. Yes, I get that CTE has this claim on-paper that it's the closest point to the JIP with pure octaves and the TE norm. It also weights 16/13 higher than 6/5, because 16/13 happens to be octave-equivalent to 13/1. This has all been talked about in the past many times - if this is what you want, great, but it isn't the one-size-fits-all solution, and we generally prefer tunings like POTE, KE, etc.
 Thanks.