Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
ars4326 wrote:
I also don't appreciate being accused of being a liar and creating "straw-man" arguments.
I don't think you are accused of being a liar. But you are representing a straw man version of evolution whether it is your own idea or not. You are not talking about evolution at all! You are talking about something else entirely, just like feos does. For your own sake, educate yourself on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (You are not talking about this when you think you are talking about evolution.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (This is what you do with evolution. Whether you like to hear this or not, you actually ARE representing a straw man version of evolution.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance (The discomfort you experience in a situation like this is due to cognitive dissonance.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
ars4326 wrote:
I don't like the tone of your remarks
When you start to criticize someone's tone instead of the arguments, then you have surely agreed to the arguments. Otherwise you would tell us why Warp is wrong instead of claiming that his tone is something you don't like.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Thank you for the interesting comments, everyone.
feos, I don't know about your personal beliefs, but some people are keen to worship something that is known as the god of the gaps, the ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. If you demand the evidence for "macroevolution" then surely you should demand the same level of evidence for comparing the different creation myths:
http://i.imgur.com/0bgKyNl.png
On what basis would you choose one of these creationist explanations of the origins of eyes?
Don't just ask the evolutionary theorists to show you "macroevolution" before your very own eyes. If you want to be honest, you would also need to ask the creationist to show you that it was precisely YHVH who created the eyes and not Bumba or some other creator. Also, ask the creation to be performed before your very own eyes. Otherwise you are giving special treatment to your favorite beliefs and demanding others unjustifiable amount of evidence. Speaking about evidence, there is never enough. What matters is this: Which explanation makes most sense to you, when you compare all given explanations. But be sure to have the best possible versions of the explanations. Otherwise you may end up comparing straw men explanations to each other.
By the way, the evolution of the eye is well established biology and a fact that is well understood, if you actually research the topic even a little bit further. I don't blindly believe it myself unless somebody explains exactly how it happened. It turns out that it has been done and explained and it fits everything else perfectly. There is zero evidence for the fact that eyes did not evolve just the way the theory of evolution describes it. Note that the theory of evolution does not actually postulate "macroevolution" of any sort.
"I can't understand how it could evolve, so Odin did it!" is an argument from ignorance, a common fallacy.
Until a better explanation is given for the emergence of eyes, the Nobel prize for that explanation remains in some Norwegian shelf. Your concept of the theory of evolution seems to come from somebody who has not even read the Wikipedia article on evolution. Like Warp said, nobody claims the things you mention other than creationists who try to defend their personal favorite beliefs, like the fact that Odin created humans from logs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
The micro/macro evolution is an ad hoc attempt at saving some dear belief that would otherwise be shown to be implausible. Of course there exists no "macroevolution" before your own eyes in the sense that creationists demand it. It is a straw man. Isn't it a naive idea to even consider that different species, eyes or any organs just pop into existence by some macroevolutionary magic force? We all agree on that. Creationists still don't stop representing that "where's the magic macroevolution" argument as if somebody actually claimed something like that to be true.
If gradual evolution alone is not enough, then we need to answer this: What exactly stops small changes accumulating over time into larger changes until they are so large that we had better give the species its own name? Where is the macroevolution in this animated mock-up:
http://i.imgur.com/1Tm54OL.gif
You see, macroevolution is not required. It is an ad hoc idea designed to save a poor explanation. Species don't suddenly turn into other species. It is all explained better than I ever could in Wikipedia alone. There are other ways to get to understand it, too. Visit a museum for example. Observe the nature and all the detailed events that happen.
Oh, did you know that you will likely receive novel medical treatment during your life time that depends on the fact that the theory of evolution is true? It is not just about the origins of eyes. It is about many things as the Wiki page mentions: Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science, based on evidence not just from the biological sciences but also from anthropology, psychology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, as well as behavioral and social sciences.
Note also that there is no need for any fossil evidence, because the comparative DNA evidence alone shows the accurate relationships between all the species. The results are the same for scientists all around the world, be it Russian, American, Indian, Finnish, Swedish or North-Korean. Well, maybe not North-Korean... Anyway, no matter who looks at it, they find that it looks AS IF all species evolved from a single common ancestor. That is what it really looks like. We can't help it. I'm not sure I even like the result myself, but I don't have any other explanation for WHY it looks AS IF. If somebody can explain why it looks as if all species evolved from a single common ancestor, then I'd be glad to hear. It is not about believing a random idea. It is believing what we all can see and explain. Thankfully some people actually study nature and don't just make ad hoc claims about it. No reasonable person blindly believes evolution just because some authority says so. I sure don't! What there is to believe are the explanations that make sense to us, or not. But be sure to check the actual explanations and not straw men versions of them. The Jehovah's Witness publications are masterfully written to make it seem that the only other option to the "straw man macroevolution" is their favorite version of the creator. I've heard imams misrepresenting evolutionary ideas, too. It is very common.
What method do you use for deciding what is true and false? Do you maybe compare the different explanations that various sources give you? Do you then choose the best explanation that makes most sense to you and requires least amount of extraneous assumptions? If so, you use the same method that I do. Edit: At least that's what I try to do, but it is impossible to avoid all cognitive biases and other shortcomings that I might have.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
feos wrote:
Are green and square equal?
No, but we don't have unjustified laws/rules/regulations/ideas concerning the basic human rights of green and square like the Bible of Green and Square would have. Like this:
"Squares are not allowed to teach. They must be quiet."
"If green is raped, the rapist must pay 50 silver to the father of the green."
Edit: As you can see, these laws have nothing to do with the properties of green and square. The same is true of the biblical laws that these two mock-ups refer to.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
So you say that the Quran is "demonically inspired" yet it managed to trick you 35 times out of 200?
It is strange indeed, because on his little page of divine beliefs he implies that 1,600,000,000+ fellow human beings are gullible enough to be tricked by Satan's super intelligent masterplan, Islam. He also seems to imply that he is himself smarter than Satan as he would not fall into any such trap.
Bisqwit wrote:
Satan masquerades often as God, pretending and misleading people saying he is the God. (2. Cor. 11:14) This is how we get Islam, for instance.
Bisqwit, sorry if I misunderstand this, but aren't you implying here that you are smarter than Satan? If Satan masquerades as God and tricks people, surely he could trick you into thinking that Islam is derived from Satan?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Bonus question: How would the people at that time treat medical conditions like alcoholism, when they did not have the proper understanding of addiction, bipolar disorder and other related phenomena?
They just didn't understand that stuff. That's why the Bible says ignorant things like that. Obviously written by people who had no clue what was actually going on. It was not a long time ago when uneducated people still believed in the existence of spirits. Every spirit possession has been completely debunked by modern medical science and psychology. No need to stone or burn the evil spirits away from the patients, because we now have the proper understanding of the phenomena and can actually help people who are ill.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
I agree with AngerFist. I don't think any website alone should cause so much stress. Take a break from the website and try to deal with other possible causes of stress in your life. Even extremely stressful situations usually don't last long. If the bad vibes won't go away in a few weeks or months, then it might be a sign of depression, in which case it is advisable to go see a doctor. It is not a big deal until you let it linger for years. Don't worry. It will all get better.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
ars4326 wrote:
Aqfaq, I am going to need a Scriptural citation here. I do not recall any verse in the Bible which states or alludes to God and Moses accepting the raping and killing of women based on sex, or anything similar to that.
Numbers 31:17-18 --> Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
How is this not calculating the value of a human being based on her sexual history?
ars4326 wrote:
I'm also just not a believer in the theory of evolution.
Which part of the theory of evolution you think is false? You can quote some false statement from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
This naturally goes to everyone else, too.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Bisqwit wrote:
Who decides morals?
Are not the morals that you take granted, something enforced upon you by the society you live in, and by its history?
Morals are not necessarily enforced by anything. A moral system can be arrived at by pure reasoning by sentient beings. Nobody forces me to do good things, but I try to do good things, because I understand that I live in a society with other sentient beings who are for the most part exactly like me. At least it would be egoistical for me to assume that I am somehow different or more important than any other person. There is also no reasonable justification for me to think that others do not have the same kind of inner experiences of enjoyment and suffering that I have, some of which are desirable to them and some that are to be avoided. This preliminary understanding alone gives rise to some moral behavior that any sufficiently social species necessarily has to arrive at. Otherwise there would not be any social interaction in the first place. I would say that at least some moral understanding must precede the simple realization that "I am not alone". I might go even further and claim that even the realization that "I am" requires that some moral already exist, but this is a bit too philosophical to have much weight. The point is, we can arrive at some morals by ourselves and by interacting with each other. Isn't that what we have been doing all along from the beginning of humanity? People are mostly good because it is the only way any society can even exist in the first place. Every society has rules, but think about this: Would you behave any differently yourself, if all the Finnish laws were made so that they don't apply to you anymore? "Congratulations! Bisqwit, you are now free to do whatever you want, no legal consequences!"
Would you behave any different in that situation? What would you do? Would you go breaking some law now that you can do it without any legal consequence? I bet you would behave pretty much the same. Morals ≠ Law.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Nach wrote:
If the Qur'an says somewhere that it limits its applicable scope to one area, say Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with you that they're very similar. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Quran does not limit its scope to one location and one set of people, and does convey a message leading towards world domination.
Oh-yes! I actually know something about this one. You're partly right and partly wrong, Nach. According to moderate Muslims (the vast majority of them), some parts of the Quran don't apply anymore. So, it is not about place. It is about time. Just like you say something in the Bible is applicable to a certain region only, Muslims think certain parts of the Quran applied at a different time. It seems that you had the common misunderstanding about the Islamic "world domination" doctrine. (It is a cheap straw man and you should get rid of it.)
Nach wrote:
I don't think the Qur'an ultimately gives you that option.
Yes it does. It just does it a bit differently compared to the Bible. Of course, some people think none of these books give any options while in reality these books are like playing Gradius. People choose to get the "options" in various ways.
Nach wrote:
To conclude, I don't see the Bible sending out a message "go forth and kill the infidels".
The vast majority of Muslims don't see that kind of message applying anymore in the Quran either. When you talk about people who go and kill infidels you are the same kind of person who talks about Christians who suicide bomb abortion clinics. It is not hard to see how reading the Bible can give you that option.
As a side note, from all the various religious strangers I've met, Muslims seemed to be the most hospitable ones. Probably by chance, though. Still, if I would have to choose from three identical houses to spend a night in {Christian, Muslim, Atheist}, I would choose the Muslim house for the guaranteed over-the-top Quranic hospitality. At least the Muslims I met told me that their religion requires them to treat every guest as family. It was almost a bit awkward for me, because I am not used to a such high level of hospitality anywhere. And I am surely an infidel!
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Thank you all for your interesting comments. For the record, I respect you all a great deal. If something seems even slightly disrespectful, it is due to me writing poorly. If I use the word "you" I am not necessarily referring to anyone in particular. It is a hard word to use correctly in English. Bear with me.
Bisqwit wrote:
It is in my honest opinion total nonsense and an utter misguided delusion to think that genders are equal.
I totally agree with you. That would surely be a poor straw man representation of some feminist argument. I don't think anyone seriously claims that genders are equal in the most literal sense. The real question is whether certain different rights/laws/rules for different genders are reasonable/justifiable. Most often they are not. That is why we have women who vote today, for example. Equal voting is a relatively new thing and I would imagine that we all understand why it is a good thing. Isn't it nice how some societies have developed enough to understand why that is?
Yes, men and women have some differences. So, based on that fact, how do we justify something like this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Why? How are women and men different enough to justify a rule like that? To me it seems obvious that they are not. There is no reasonable justification for that rule. The same is true for many biblical rules. The Bible even has many parts where women are clearly used as mere loot. A woman who has not fucked yet is good loot, but a woman who has already fucked somebody is killable loot: http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
How do we justify all that rape stuff? How do we justify evaluating the value of a woman on the basis of her sexual EXP? By saying that men and women have some intrinsic differences? This goes especially to ars4326, who says that the Bible gives great honor to women. How is that compatible with the fact that God and Moses accept the raping and killing of women based solely on an arbitrary attribute that doesn't even have anything to do with gender in the first place, namely the sex EXP? If women are given great honor, how come Jesus did not have even a single female disciple? Surely that would be a great honor. I haven't heard a plausible explanation for this other than that men and women are "somehow" different. That is hardly an explanation, because we can clearly see that the same explanation could have been used to stop women from voting, which we all agree is unjustifiable.
(Hmm, if we agree that women should be allowed to vote today, then our explanation for why Jesus had no female disciples should include better reasons than the ones that were once used to stop women from voting. Otherwise we may end up accepting an explanation that implies that women should not be allowed to vote or that Jesus would not allow women to vote. Maybe all-male-disciples was pure chance? I've actually heard this argument from a Jehovah's Witness: Jesus may have had only male disciples purely by chance. LOL? Maybe it is also purely by chance that the God is referred to as "father" and the archetypal messiah character is always a male and there are 1181 named men, but only 188 named women in the Bible? Sure, it could be by chance, but when we look at it all in any wider context we can see that there are other possible explanations that seem more probable and much more plausible.)
Genesis 2:18 --> The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
ars4326, how is that honoring the woman? Isn't she clearly stated here to have been made for the use of man, a mere tool? This is only one of the 31000+ verses. There are many more verses where it is directly made clear that the woman is the property of man and a tool for creating kids. We can choose the verses any way we like.
Genesis 3:16 --> To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."ars4326 wrote:
it was also a woman who was chosen to conceive Jesus Christ
Indeed. First the childbearing was made to be very painful and then a woman was forced to do that. How's that showing "great deal of honor" to the woman exactly? I don't think you picked the best example here, ars. Also, once again the bonus question: What would the above part of the Bible look like, if it was written by common men who tried to explain the immense birth pains without understanding the evolutionary history of the large mammalian skull? Moozooh knows the answer, but what do you think about it?
ars4236, if we start picking verses, well, it doesn't work well for you, if you try to defend the Bible as something that ultimately honors women. These are allegedly the words of Moses: "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
If this is "deliberately out of context" or anything like that, then the same applies to your verses where the woman is honored. You abuse the verses to make it look like the Bible honors women, just like I abuse them to make it seem like Moses approves killing and rape. He surely doesn't, does he? He honors the killed women who had been unlucky enough to make love for the first time the day before the raid? Moses was like 4chan. Totally raiding and totally abusing bitches. Do you approve this rape stuff and the owning of women as property? This is all in your favorite holy book. It is nothing controversial or even debatable. We can all read it directly from the book itself. Of course, we can choose to skip these parts and pick the verses that honor women, like you did. Sure, there are parts that honor women. However, if we look at the book as a whole, it clearly shows unjustified male chauvinism from the very beginning to the very end. Only a religiously biased mind can deny it and this sentence. For an additional exercise, just count the number of times the female is called "whore" in the Bible. Or virgin. The most important aspect of most biblical women is their personal sexual history. Is that honorable, nice and wise? The bonus question: What would the depictions of females in the Bible look like, if it was all written by normal horny men?
Surely I am wrong at some point? Please show me my biases. It is always nice to get rid of some. Oh, how many there are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cognitive_Biases (I think this list is a top reference to anyone trying to understand anything about anything and themselves. I recommend bookmarking it.)
Also, what do you think about this: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.fi/2010/08/top-seven-ways-christianity-is-debunked.html
All in all, no worries people. You are great. Also, no hurry in answering. I consider most conversations more or less timeless and casual anyway.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Nach wrote:
In every society that we know of in history, and including today, women are not the major leaders or dominating characters if represented in leadership at all.
Correct. Why do you think that is? Can you name a few historical ideas that may have contributed to the fact that only very recently the societies around the world have become to understand the importance of gender equality? Oh, here's one:
1 Timothy 2:12 --> "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
The Bible was undeniably written by uncivilized men who had no concept of gender equality.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
ars4326 wrote:
I am also a Christian who believes in the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Why?
ars4326 wrote:
But if anyone has any questions about the Bible, maybe I could assist and help add some clarity?
Apparently, there are only 188 named women characters in the Bible, but a whopping 1181 named male characters. Why?
Bonus question: What would the Bible look like, if it was written by common patriarchal men at a time when male chauvinism was prevalent in the society?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Ferret Warlord wrote:
mods that rely on source ports
I'm not sure whether any existing Doom TAS tools work on them. I would like to see TASes of Action Doom 1 & 2.
By the way, I hope this Kama Sutra run gets accepted, because any additional visibility probably increases the probability that we see more and better Doom TASes in the future.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Bisqwit wrote:
The contrast was that while in Islam, Muhammad is placed on a godlike pedestal, a model, a flawless prophet of Allah of unquestionable merit, whom every good Muslim defends against any and all criticism, despite his life story being recorded in gruesome detail in the Hadiths, and who is explicitly and mandatorily mentioned in the very declaration of Islamic faith -- in the Bible no prophet gets any glory; the role and task of prophets and teachers and apostles in the Bible is to be so little that the greatness of God can show through them; and anyone in the Bible who is closest to God will also be judged the harshest way.
That seems hardly a contrast, when it can equally well be said that in Christianity Jesus is placed on a godlike pedestal, a model, a flawless son of God of unquestionable merit, whom every good Christian defends against any and all criticism, despite his life story involving the endorsement of slavery and male chauvinism*, and who is explicitly and mandatorily mentioned in the very declaration of Christian faith. In the Bible it is implied that the prophets have the chance to get eternal life, which is undoubtedly the greatest glory anyone can receive.
I don't think you chose the best method, if you really want to contrast Islam and Christianity.
Also, how is that not exactly "the same shit in a different package"? I'm not saying it is, but we don't need to be Einsteins to calculate how somebody might come to a conclusion like that.
Have you considered that when people say "same shit" they might actually refer to the "shitty method" that a religious person uses for acquiring his/her particular beliefs, which is often something like personal experience, a personal favorite book and personal faith? Maybe the Atheists refer to this "shitty method of deciding what is true" when they talk about "same shit"?
I suppose we all understand that there are many versions of Islam just like there are many versions of Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. There surely exist Muslims who care less about Muhammad as a glorified figure and more about some other teachings of the Ur-Quan [sic]. Your text about Muhammad might be accidentally hinting to the doctrine that "all Muslims are the same", which is the same fallacy that you claim Atheists fall into when they bundle all religions together. Maybe humbly bundling all Muslims together as the opposing team makes you comfortable or should I say complacent? Imagine a Bisqmuhammad writing on his page of personal beliefs that "Christianity is all about glorifying this one man called Jesus." That is exactly how your text might come out to a casual reader.
By the way, I think your little page about divine beliefs is cool. Thank you for writing it. It is an interesting read and feels like a window to a different universe. Do you know others who have written similar pages about their personal beliefs? Would be interesting to read some more.
Bisqwit wrote:
For instance, there are motions within the Finnish Evangelic-Lutheran Church to let the Muslims hold services in Christian churches.
That's nice. These Christians seem to have understood the part about loving your enemy. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" also fits the context as I can imagine any Christian minority being delighted to have their meetings in a Mosque. Always nice to hear when humans are genuinely tolerant and friendly. And brave.
* 12 disciples. All men. Because women are not good enough for Jesus?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Bisqwit wrote:
But go on, believe the doctrine of "all religions are the same" if that makes you complacant.
I don't think anyone believes that all religions are the same. That would be obviously false. Do you know somebody who actually believes so? I don't.
Maybe you mean "complacent"? I agree, it would be complacent or at least ignorant to say that all religions are the same. I'd also say it is ignorant to say that Qur'an is "all about" glorifying this one man.
If you are wondering, it is from this page: http://bisqwit.iki.fi/jesus/
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Bisqwit wrote:
The Qu'ran is all about glorifying this one man, this one conquering and enslaving and murdering man.
Are you sure you didn't mean to say that the Bible is all about glorifying one god, this one conquering and enslaving and murdering and jealous god?
I would advice not using all-encompassing expressions like "all about". It has a tendency to appear in contexts where the person is not really interested in knowing what something is really about.
Have you even read the Qur'an?
Edit: Notice the correct use of apostrophe.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
I wanted to list all submissions for hacks/mods, but can't do it. Does somebody have an idea how to check them, other than manually looking at all submissions?
If there was a checkbox in the submission form that asked whether the TAS is for a hack/mod, then we could list them automatically. Might be helpful sometimes.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Expert player
(2460)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Warp wrote:
After all, we ought to put a limit to how many unofficial mods we accept, or else the site could be littered with TASes for them.
This is a valid concern, but I wonder whether the effect would actually be significant even if there was no limit at all. I think people mostly ignore bad hacks and mods. It seems that very few highly optimized TASes are ever made for such things.
By the way, it would be interesting to see the submission ratio for official games vs. hacks. Oh, it seems that I can't list all hack/mod submissions. Maybe the submission form could be improved by including a checkbox for hacks/mods?
