And why is stopping any further civil discussion on the matter a good idea, again? Is this such a touchy subject you need to lock the thread before anything bad has even happened?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
#1) 1-5 people join the site per day. Assuming that there were blacklists, they'd be on individuals sites, and linked to their posts. Thus, you'd have to page through a couple pages of google to find these blacklists. Per user. Per day. That is a shit ton of work.
#2) If a user had been blacklisted for illegitimate reasons, should we ban them automatically? That seems very easy to abuse.
#3) If a user is blacklisted, they can simply make a small change to their nick and remain the same. DarkKobold may have been blacklisted, but that doesn't prevent DarkKobo1d from going ape shit at a new site.
No, no, you misunderstand. Why would anybody bother checking every new user, let alone autoban them? Troublemakers make themselves noticeable, but not everybody who makes themselves noticeable is a troublemaker. We already do basic checkup on users who are suspicious or otherwise scandalous. Having a decentralized database like this would just make that easier and save time and effort early on, although of course it would be even better centralized.
Do note that trading forums have employed this scheme for many years to inform people of scammers (like Japhei), and you can ask any admin of said forums for a confirmation of its usefulness. Money and property isn't involved as much here, of course, but you can see how it can be used.
DarkKobold wrote:
Why create a list that could be seen as a trophy in the eyes of the disturbed?
So that others could see things like that don't fly well here? Again, well-behaved members could have a reference to see why particular people were banned. After all I'm not at all bothered if it's useful to people I shouldn't care about in the first place, I'm more bothered when useful things aren't available to people who deserve better.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
This mindset is flawed, because adelikat is interested in advancing and broadening of the community. Without us his "guests" the site would have no purpose whatsoever.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Mario 64 should regain its star. Seriously, I just checked the list and was confused by the omission. What happened? What was the thought process?
IIRC Mario 64 0-star's star wasn't inherited because of questionable camera work. It's faster than the previous run, and that was the major reason it was accepted (there were other reasons as well), but whether it was more recommendable, or recommendable to newbies at all, was rather heatedly debated over the course of the discussion surrounding it. And since we don't recommend obsolete movies, it turned out that way.
Bezman wrote:
The list has too many 2D platformers/2D action games and maybe too many long movies. I understand that the 2D games may be where lots of technical tricks can be done but as an 'outsider', it just seems a bit repetitive and a newcomer may feel that these kinds of games are all the site offers. Yes, MM has completely different tricks than Sonic or Castlevania but having more games of completely different genres or styles would show more diversity and get folk more excited. I would suggest dropping a couple of the 2D action-platformers for Mario 64 and King's Bounty.
Genre-diversity for the sake of genre-diversity is by itself hardly a good reason. I'd say most of the genres (at least all the major ones I'm aware of) are pretty well represented on the site, and it just so happens that the most fast-paced or creatively glitched games tend to be 2D platformers. Besides, they're usually the easiest ones to track without prior knowledge of the game due to being simple in their nature and premises (which is something that can't be said about, say, RPGs, strategies, different kinds of adventure games, etc.). This ease of tracking is a very important factor in recommending a TAS of a game to people with no assumed knowledge of it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
It is usually none of your business why someone may have been banned.
...Which is not a good attitude to have towards members or the audience at all, because it's nontransparent and leaves ample room for distrust and speculations of abuse. If a person whom I considered to be a normal and helpful member of the community suddenly got erased from the site, what am I to think of them? Of the admins? Does that mean I can be banned for seemingly no reason too? There's no respect for community in this attitude, because expelling members is not a personal (as in: private) affair, it's a communal affair. And the concept of silently sweeping such an act under the rug doesn't apply, simply because we do label banned users as banned publicly, as well as have public rule enforcement regarding non-acceptance of their services.
When I asked a similar question as to why there can't be a public blacklist with reasons, Grunt replied in the vein of not attracting further attention towards the banned, who are usually very fond of any kind of attention. Although I've taken that for an answer, I still think it's not a good reason. History has shown a lot of cases where admins could have preemptively acted towards certain infamous offenders but failed to do it in time due to lack of information. If all major communities had such blacklists it would have been much easier to prevent incidents. Which is especially true seeing as most notable troublemakers are vain enough to register under the same and/or similar handles on all communities they frequent.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
How many Jew jokes am I allowed to make in the publication text?
Let's maintain good taste.
It's good taste; I'm Jewish.
To be honest, I'm seeing something inherently wrong in one party joking about itself being good taste while another party joking about it bad, no matter the content. :D
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Well, that depends solely on the rights they claim. For one, we attribute every run properly and don't make any profit off of them. Those are commonly the most important.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Isn't annual XBL subscription roughly comparable to half a new game's cost? For people that buy a new one each few weeks that's hardly much. There's no point to it outside of multiplayer though.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
not to mention PSN getting hacked, though I guess that's like a 1 time thing?
I wouldn't count on that. After all, Sony never learn from their mistakes. It's quite literally amazing how a technological giant with metric tons of money at their disposal falls prey to simpliest of hacks and still claims high security and similar bullshit.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
PS: What makes one Iceland thread real and the other fake? Neither of these Iceland splits seems to be more relevant to the original question than the other.
Maybe you could try comparing? Especially considering this thread isn't relevant to anything whatsoever, other than itself maybe.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Slim models are robust enough. Actually my Falcon from 2008 (in use since 2010 though) has never shown any signs of problem either.
I bought it for a few shmups, and it was worth it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
So... why exactly are you guys (Fabian in particular) upset/amused by the topic being split? And what does the amount of replies have to do with anything?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
What would you say if I postulate that aging (and death itself, in the form of phenoptosis) are mostly programmed organism behavior installed to facilitate evolution? There is a very interesting link between life expectancy, reproduction rate, and position in the food chain indeed.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The man has not released his methods. Of course they cannot be replicated (unless it is through sheer luck).
sonicpacker wrote:
His research is not being suppressed. However, his want to make his method public is. That is why he can still treat his own patients. Now I don't know about you, but considering he WANTS his method to be available to the public (and has been trying to do so for ~30 years), I don't believe he is in it for the money.
Uhh, excuse me? Did FDA cut off his tongue and fingers?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
You should try to contact Blublu and schneelocke. IIRC they are both from Iceland, but they don't seem to be around anymore, so they probably won't notice this thread.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I'd rather say it's based on the lack of available evidence, and that's pretty much the reason it's pointless to argue it, especially with people like nfq who believe just about everything as long as you can justify it with words, no matter how batshit insane your justification is. I don't even know what you were trying to achieve, lol.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
