To Garnier

Hey Garnier, I know you are quite busy these days but, is it possible to talk to somebody to repair all the problems of the GCM? Some folks among the community have experience and expertise in computers software etc.

I would love to pass the baton to someone who has the time, skill, and commitment. There are a number of difficulties though.

If I give access to the current website to someone, they could very easily break it accidentally, and they might not have the time or skill or commitment to fix it again. I've broken it myself accidentally in ways that took many hours of my time to figure out and fix. I'm reluctant to take that risk.

One thing I could potentially do is give a copy of the source code and the website data to someone, and let them host a clone of sowmp.com.
- I would need to trust this person, or at least the people I trust would need to trust them.
- This would cost money -- I'm paying $50/month for this part of the website, not sure what a new plan would cost today.
- It would not be trivial and I don't have time to help with the effort. Setting up the GCM we have now took me hundreds and hundreds of hours all told. I was in college and had lots of time and this was a good way for me to learn programming.

If someone is really serious about doing that, a good way to start would be by downloading the GCM offline version and making some nontrivial changes to it and sharing that, to sort of prove interest.

I'm not sure the problem with regiment numbers is worth this kind of effort -- and that problem itself is a complicated one. If I sent someone the website source code, they wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out what's wrong or how to fix it. (I'll admit, some of this stuff is a real mess code-wise, because I was using it to experiment with silly software ideas.)

I'd share the same concerns.

I'm not going to say that I definitely have the skill to figure out original code like GCM, but if I could have access to a copy of the files, I'd just like an opportunity to look at them offline. I should be able to tell rather quickly if I could do anything.

Also, there aren't backups of GCM that go far enough back to before this problem started, right? I imagine there is only a few weeks-worth of backups, if that.

Finally, if we offered to pool our money, that wouldn't work for you to take a look, right? You said it was time constraints that prevented you from working on this. But just figured I'd ask about that.

I have more questions, mainly if there are workarounds we can do using the current admin options (which I dont' have, obviously) but will hold off for now.

We really have to be careful what we wish for here. The regimental numbers problem is annoying but not, IMO and as Garnier suggests, important enough to put the entire system at risk. It's also not something worth investing additional $$ toward fixing (at least, I would not be wiling to make additional contributions for it). If someone wants to download code copy on the side and play with it just for fun, that's one thing. (Eventually) migrating experimental changes into our 'production environment' carrying the potential for ruining GCM for everyone if it wasn't perfectly done, is something else entirely.

Getting an offline copy is what we were saying. I know how web sites work and what goes into--especially the risks--deploying changes from a staging site to a production site. I'm a professional web developer for a major news org where a deployment mistake is a major issue for even a few minutes. I'm not trying to brag. I'm just trying to offer some background on why I feel qualified to even ask about these things. If I had no idea about this stuff, I would've given up asking a long time ago.

And I was talking about only those interested in the change contributing to possibly paying Garnier for his time, which I also acknowledged he has time constraints which would make the money thing moot.

I'm well aware of your position on all this and appreciate your concern for protecting the integrity of the site for everyone. I know Garnier has entrusted you to watch over the site now. But Garnier has also felt it worth a few minutes to engage us directly here, which we are very grateful for. All we are/were asking for was more information on this and if there were possible avenues to finding a solution to the many--albeit minor/moderate--problems that have hurt GCM the last year or two.

i seriously doubt that $$ is an issue with Garnier... it's a time and desire issue. He has been good enough to stay as involved as he has for as long as he has....

It is encouraging to think he is willing to turn the code over to someone at all for whatever purpose. I think that is potentially a way forward with GCM, and ultimately there must be a way forward that involves some kind of software support, other than sending Garnier an email everytime something goes amiss.... if he hasn't grown tired of that by now, he will, and understandably so.

What concerns me, is this communities willingness to shoulder any kind of financial burden that will accompany any future additional work, let alone the simple task of supporting the ongoing server/TS costs.... it seems difficult to get monthly contributions to square up except for a relative few souls willing to step up. Set up a parallel site to test ?? I am interested to see if the community cold pull that off.... I will step up... for how long, and for how much $ everyone would have to deal with that...

Call me a nay-sayer, but I think a reality check might be in order. The possibility of finding a 'way forward' with established 'software support' lies somewhere between slim and none, IMO. In a community of perhaps 30-odd regular players, the customer base is totally inadequate to provide anything more than token/nominal paid support for the GCM 'product.' This leaves two very remote options for there ever to be a practical way to improve the mod or even fix anything but the simplest, most straightforward breakage. These are 1) finding someone within the GCM community with the time, expertise and commitment needed to step into Garnier's shoes of old coupled with a willingness to work hundreds of hours for free or 2) Garnier sells his creation to some Norbsoft die-hard to market GCM in some form. Option 1 is highly unlikely because of the daunting learning curve and the prospect of additional expense required. And #2 is even less likely, requiring a stroke of serendipity tantamount to winning the lottery.

This all leaves us with option 3 (our current state), which is: We limp along with a system that works pretty well in its fundamentals (as evidenced by its remarkable popularity after ~10 years), but with prospects for enhancement/improvement limited to whatever creative minds can conjure up by juggling the odd .csv file and/or working within the framework of the game's settings. We have done fairly well so far keeping our heads above water by band-aiding the occasional system boo-boo, and are still plugging along.

It doesn't hurt to dream big and I'd love nothing more wrong than to be proven wrong in the above assessment. But I've also been around long enough and with related real-life business experience to realize that much of the opinion put forth on this subject in the forums is little more than wishful thinking and semi-crazy talk.

I suspect one problem and I am guilty of this is that people don't bother to donate when they see the balance is positive, I would encourage people to donate a small amount even when we're in the green. If everyone donated 10$ a month we would have plenty for two websites. With that being said, it's above my knowledge but I would think a test site might not need to go online or cost money.

A reality check may be in order for some ppl, but as I explained, I'm fully aware of what goes into the things I specifically mentioned. That's why I ask in the first place. I wanted more info and receive some of it. If Garnier wants to allow me a copy of the site to work on offline, that would be great. If nothing ever comes of my work, that's fine. All I wanted was an opportunity to try. I agree with you Palmer that the time for possibly moving GCM to NSD or anything official like that had passed many years ago and could never work now. That's why I didn't suggest it.

Garnier, thank you so very much for taking the time to look into these issues.

Hey Garnier, the regimental numbering problem seems to have started up again. Is there a way you can show me/us how to fix it so you don't have to each time? Thanks in advance.

Garnier, I know you rarely stop by here, but just in case...

mike1984 wrote: Hey Garnier, the regimental numbering problem seems to have started up again. Is there a way you can show me/us how to fix it so you don't have to each time? Thanks in advance.

It's a real shame that I wasn't given the opportunity to look at the files on my own. Not sure what the problem would've been. It wouldn't have affected or risked the live site in any way whatsoever.

And here is woe is me again.... We now find ourselves is a state of decrepitation that has begun, from my perspective, the reduction of enjoyment that i have loved for the past several years....

We currently have 1) no refreshing of the brigade pool, with limited Feds vers Reb brigades, 2) no ability to run global turns, with the associated risks of losing decent regiments when forced to run turns on your own, 3) and now most disappointing of all, no replays available. This last one really hurts the game in a big way in my small brain...

Way forward? Pray to Garnier I guess....

Bump. Agreed the global turns and replays are a problem, the other issues are trivial to me. At least the replays work sometimes, and I have faith the global turns will return. Either way, I'm playing GCM until the wheels fall off.