- Location
- Der Waffle Haus
The sentence right before the one you quoted is me saying that when I read statements like "stuff turned out by Solar artisans and their assistants would be built to the most exacting standards" and "Solars with a more utilitarian bent though? Would insist on designs that are more rugged, both for themselves, and their retainers" and (from a post I didn't quote because it wasn't on the same page) "It seems to be more about the workmanship than the design goals" they suggest that only the non-exacting/non-utilitarian would make artifacts that require maintenance.
At no point did I mean that those words were actually said, and I apologize if I imply that. But, if your conception of FA artifact making is that maintenance/upkeep would only be involved if you knew about how to make items imperishable but didn't care to reach that standard/didn't care about the lost utility/didn't put in the necessary workmanship, that to me implies some measure of laziness and/or foolishness since you were then deliberately choosing to make them perishable (in the same way that if I know a home cooked meal will be a de factor better choice for me than Arbys, but still choose Arbys, it's probably due to laziness and/or foolishness).
I admit that I might be misreading/misinterpreting uju32's point. From how I've been reading things, there's disagreement over how maintenance heavy the FA should be/was, with uju32 saying that it's not likely to be maintenance heavy because the Solars were geniuses with access to the best tools, so they'd more likely consciously choose the non-maintenance version of Artifacts. My main disagreement is based around what I perceive to be the suggested continuum of that, that everything can be built in either perishable or imperishable forms, since I've usually played in games/read the setting to assume that the FA had Artifacts that only make sense in the context of 'maintenance' that the FA provided.
Apologies again if I've misread or appeared to put words into somebody's mouth.