Stop claiming rotation and robotics are the same thing. They are not.

[Dunbaratu]

Whenever someone requests the ability to rotate parts like docking clamps, the request is immediately stifled using the utterly ridiculous notion that they've just asked for robotics. No They Haven't.

Manually moved things under human control are not robots. The fact that I can turn a doorknob does not make the doorknob a robot. The fact that the fins and flaps on a KSP rocket rotate when you use the WASD keys does not mean they are robots.

If there is a reason that manually rotatable parts are not supposed to be suggested then they need to be treated as an entirely separate topic from robotics. Constantly telling people they should have already known that that's what "robotics" means is not reasonable because that's not what the word means. Causing a thing to move by twisting a control knob is not robotics. If there is a reason that rotating parts are not to be suggested then they need to be mentioned separately from robotics, since that's not even remotely close to being the same thing.

[vexx32]

You are correct, moving a thing with a control knob is not robotics; it is mechanics. Both of which are on the What Not to Suggest List, even on the exact same bullet point.

[Sochin]

Well personally I think the what not to suggest list needs kicking into touch as its obvious that elements been suggested (mostly) would make reasonable additions to the game. If a part or idea is in a real world space programme then it should reasonably have a replicated part or action in KSP, and its about time SQUAD listens to its customers regarding that!

[Dunbaratu]

"Mechanics" is entirely too vague of a term to be meaningful. It covers pretty much everything.

Besides when you recently locked a thread for suggesting rotating docking rings you cited the word "robotics' not the word "mechanics" as the reason.

[Murph]

Well personally I think the what not to suggest list needs kicking into touch as its obvious that elements been suggested (mostly) would make reasonable additions to the game. If a part or idea is in a real world space programme then it should reasonably have a replicated part or action in KSP, and its about time SQUAD listens to its customers regarding that!

I think you may be misinterpreting what is intended by "what not to suggest". I could be quite wrong on this, but I understand it to be a list of things which is BOTH stuff which has been ruled as never going to happen, AND stuff which is actually quite likely to happen (or be fixed) eventually. It makes sense to me for it to cover both functions for the purpose of keeping the noise down in the suggestions forum. There's very little value in repeatedly having threads suggesting stuff which is planned anyway, unless they open with significant detail on how something should be implemented, way beyond "we should have xxxx".

Edit: To quote the opening of the WNTS sticky: "This is a list of features that are commonly suggested, already planned or denied.".

[StarkRG]

Presumably the reason this is considered "robotics" is because it's included in the Magic Smoke Industries/Infernal Robotics mod. Unless you're suggesting a kerbal has to get out and manually operate the part it is robotic. The robotic arm on the Space Shuttle and ISS are still robotic arms despite the fact that they require a human to operate them. A non-autonomous robot is still a robot.

[KasperVld]

Discussing staff action in public is something we don't allow on the forums, so I'm closing this thread (which is about not closing threads) with a great sense of irony. If you want explanation on why a thread is locked then please contact the moderator in question.