Allow surface attachment for all parts

[tater]

25 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Including the part about improving planets? No, they didn't, and the suggestion is ridiculous.

Obviously, that was clearly (and explicitly) a hypothetical, and someone would claim that the new planets were impossible to land spaceplanes on because they were no longer flat enough, and hence not Kerbal. I doubt many would disagree that this is a likely response of at least a segment of the community based upon people's reactions to the soup or wobbly rockets.

Edited August 18, 2016 by tater

[The_Rocketeer]

I doubt many would disagree that changing the editor rules would create the potential for further demands, but apparently to some that's just a slippery slope fallacy (which actually it definitively isn't, but the blindest won't see).

FWIW I wouldn't have said anything more on this subject, but hypocrisy ALWAYS needs to be called out.

Edited August 18, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[klgraham1013]

I've got to side with those who think it's an arbitrary restriction for all the reasons already mentioned.  Just figured I put in my support for this idea.

[tater]

The bit that threw it over the line was "where will it end?"

Like the realism threads (there have been several I have participated in) where people wanting RL used as a useful, consistent benchmark have been told that if "realism" is added we literally need to model every single boring aspect of running a space program if X was made more realistic. That's a straw man, as they are not restating our argument, but it's also a slippery slope (if x, then necessarily y, because they say so).

The bottom line is that right now, all parts can be attached radially, but some inconsistently require an extra part to do so. It's the inconsistency that is the problem, it's not like a large, heavy fuel tank is somehow easier to cantilever off the side of another tank (any tank) than the smallest rocket engine. It makes no sense whatsoever. 

An alternate solution would be no radial attachment without the extra parts... Because apparently more laggy parts and wobbly rockets is a good thing to some people---oh, wait, they can add all the extra parts, then fix it with yet more parts! (Struts)

Edited August 18, 2016 by tater

[Alshain]

It just occurred to me why it is the way it is.  It wasn't that long ago we didn't have the option to hold the mod key and snap to the node.  The fact that some parts are not radially attachable is likely because of those days gone by and Squad probably never went in and re-evaluated its need once the controls improved.

It's still a gameplay change, but I think I am leaning toward it being a good one.  Though it won't bother me if it does or doesn't happen, so I don't if my vote really counts (as if it ever did).

Edited August 18, 2016 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

7 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I doubt many would disagree that changing the editor rules would create the potential for further demands, but apparently to some that's just a slippery slope fallacy (which actually it definitively isn't, but the blindest won't see).

FWIW I wouldn't have said anything more on this subject, but hypocrisy ALWAYS needs to be called out.

Switching from slippery slope to ad hominem? Let's do appeal to tradition next!

[The_Rocketeer]

That's dangerously close to one of those personally offensive posts that are banned by the forum rules RIC. If you weren't a moderator I'd report u, but since you are, frankly what's the point? Perhaps I should just clear off again.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

That's dangerously close to one of those personally offensive posts that are banned by the forum rules RIC. If you weren't a moderator I'd report u, but since you are, frankly what's the point? Perhaps I should just clear off again.

Reports can be seen by all moderators.  I've reported mods before.  If you truly believe that you have been slighted and are not at fault in the slightest, then report away.  It's what the button is for.

But, quite frankly, RIC is in the right here.  And we're heading off topic.

[Red Iron Crown]

27 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

That's dangerously close to one of those personally offensive posts that are banned by the forum rules RIC. If you weren't a moderator I'd report u, but since you are, frankly what's the point? Perhaps I should just clear off again.

Please, tell me more about these mysterious forum rules.

Let me make this clear: It is not against the rules to disagree with someone, or to point out flaws in their arguments. That is how debate and discussion work. I make no statement about your character or personality, only point out that you are some of your arguments in this thread are fallacies, IMO.

What is against the rules is calling people names or assaulting their character, which I have not done.

Finally, reread your post I quoted:

9 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I doubt many would disagree that changing the editor rules would create the potential for further demands, but apparently to some that's just a slippery slope fallacy (which actually it definitively isn't, but the blindest won't see).

FWIW I wouldn't have said anything more on this subject, but hypocrisy ALWAYS needs to be called out.

You accuse the people disagreeing with you of "hypocrisy" and being "the blindest", which are not discussing their arguments but instead the character of the posters, but then want to cry "Personal insult!" when I say you're using another logical fallacy, which says nothing about you personally? Are you about to call yourself out?

[The_Rocketeer]

Let me make this clear:

I find the way you @Red Iron Crown have responded to my comments on this thread offensive, deliberately and personally belittling and rude. I also find it offensive how freely you have flouted the forum policy of remaining on topic to make such personal attacks - as you are a moderator I think the example you have set here is shameful. Those are the rules to which I refer. You and others seem determined to drive my views out of this thread - that is bullying behaviour and I find it unacceptable. I also find it unacceptable to be accused of fallacies and then have others produce similar fallacies without remark.

As I have already said, I am quite happy for others to disagree with my views - many others have done so without personal remarks - but being bullied, most of all by a moderator like yourself, is totally unacceptable. Frankly, I used to consider you one of the more reasonable moderators on this forum - emphasis on 'used to'. Lately your posts (here and in other threads) have seemed particularly argumentative and increasingly agressive. If I were an administrator of this forum, I would be seriously questioning your suitability for the role of moderator.

It's regretable that my remarks here will probably be taken as a personal attack, when actually I had been considering making them privately out of concern, but I'm afraid I've had enough of this now.

[r4pt0r]

What is so wrong about him pointing out your attempts at using logical fallacies? If its any consolation I think you are playing the victim card pretty heavy here.

Edited August 19, 2016 by r4pt0r

[The_Rocketeer]

Whether I use a fallacious argument or not makes no difference to the worth of my opinion in regard to this matter. We are not all intellectual geniuses or masters of debate and argumentative techniques. Some members of this forum seem to think that looking for posts in which authors have expressed themselves badly is an opportunity for an intellectual whipping. That's just as wrong as picking on a fat kid for not being able to run as fast as the rest.

However, I have already flagged my own post for moderator attention and won't derail this thread further with off-topic discussion.

[Vanamonde]

This thread has not been anywhere near its subject since sometime yesterday, and has become personal and heated. Perhaps we can take the discussion up again at some future date, but for now, please set this one aside until tempers have cooled.