Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Any% is subjective, which is why we retired it.
Post #373655Post #373887
Anything that's not any% is even more subjective. And it doesn't tell anything useful about the run at all.
Also, provide the average percentage of runs that will need this label. It sounds too broad and common to warrant a special category (Aims for fastest time was retired for that reason).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
These posts are talking about branch names, not movie tags.
We do have a more or less objective measure of what counts as any%; the Vault depends on it to function.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Also, provide the average percentage of runs that will need this label. It sounds too broad and common to warrant a special category (Aims for fastest time was retired for that reason).
Good luck finding these runs in the sea of moons movies then.
To add more on that, I can't provide a percentage. I can just say that finding movies with unusual goals not that easy and is different enough from most of the movies. It's like the playaround tag. It's different.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Mothrayas wrote:
These posts are talking about branch names, not movie tags.
No, they are talking about the flag idea.
Niamek wrote:
Good luck finding these runs in the sea of moons movies then.
I was about to say the same to you. If you add a tag, you have to find all the movies that will fit. And half of our movie classes are the reverse versions of each other. If you label, say, 30% of the runs "Uses a special goal", then you also have to label the rest 70% "Avoids special goals".
Niamek wrote:
I can just say that finding movies with unusual goals not that easy and is different enough from most of the movies.
Different in what? As I said, such label tells literally nothing useful.
The number of movies that will fit also matters, because it's not handy to open super huge movie lists. This is why staff wants to move away from entire tier displays per platform, towards game-based catalog. There's just no manpower to code that change.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I normally don't mind TASVideos' resistance to change, but in this case, Niamek is proposing such a small, inconsequential, and easy-to-implement change that I think it's a pretty good idea.
I'd be interested in arguments against it from someone in addition to feos.
The default should be Any% and anything that isn't should tell you what it is. Note that this does not mean all of these are vaultable, what is vaultable and what is not is not the discussion here.
100% should be a tag that includes both 100% categories directly and categories that don't follow the % formula directly but still imply a full completion (120 Stars comes to mind as an example). I also feel that "obtain all pokemon" should fall under this category, though there may be a reason it does not.
Low% should be a tag for runs that complete the game with a minimum % of items or minimum amount of items, where this is slower than just beating the game normally (as failing this it would just be Any%). This should be applied. If more than one Low% is possible, you can use descriptions to differentiate the TASes.
All Levels should be a tag for runs that complete all of the levels/dungeons/worlds/etc. that exist in the standard game in cases where this is not the 100% requirement and where skipping worlds/levels is a valid option. Note that this would not apply when you skip levels within a world but avoid skipping worlds, but *would* apply if you do all the worlds, but out of order (i.e. a warpless run for Mario would not be All Levels, but a run that beats all the levels, even if it does so out of order would be All Levels). As stated before, this also doesn't apply where skipping levels is not an option at all.
Playaround has been discussed prior, but should be more applied to TASes that don't aim for speed but instead show off technical capabilities of the game or console itself.
Max Score is a 100% alternative for games based on score and not a completion level, and should be the highest score obtainable in the game. This should not be used in cases where 100% is possible (i.e. Max Score and 100% should be mutually exclusive for a given game), even if score is different from 100%.
Best Ending, and its counterpart, Worst Ending, should be completion alternatives where the fastest ending is neither the best nor worst, assuming there are multiple endings. It's not necessary for this to be mutually exclusive with 100% or Max Score, but odds are it will be.
Special Goal should be for cases that do not fit under the above tags nor Any%, and could include esoteric goals (such as max coins) that are still optimized for speed (this being a key difference between playaround and special goal). This could include a completion that goes beyond 100% (such as All Permanent Flags, to use an example from Twilight Princess- in addition to 100% we aim to set every permanent flag in the game, which includes opening every chest as well as other things) as well as encompassing some rather obscure glitch categories that don't fall under the above tags. As this tag is less explanatory than others, details should be part of the description.
Well said Habreno. You said everything I envisioned in this tag in a better wording than me. Quoting some part of your message to put emphasis on what I actually meant.
Habreno wrote:
Special Goal should be for cases that do not fit under the above tags nor Any%, and could include esoteric goals (such as max coins) that are still optimized for speed (this being a key difference between playaround and special goal). This could include a completion that goes beyond 100% (such as All Permanent Flags, to use an example from Twilight Princess- in addition to 100% we aim to set every permanent flag in the game, which includes opening every chest as well as other things) as well as encompassing some rather obscure glitch categories that don't fall under the above tags.
This is why I wasn't including playaround.
Habreno wrote:
As this tag is less explanatory than others, details should be part of the description.
Agreed.
Also, I'd be willing to help on putting this tag to the movies.
If you label, say, 30% of the runs "Uses a special goal", then you also have to label the rest 70% "Avoids special goals".
That doesn't appear to be the case. Only 309 of all movies are tagged with either "Uses death to save time" or "Forgoes time-saving death". Only 123 movies are tagged with "warps" or "no warps". Only 178 are tagged with "skip glitch" (which is somehow distinct from "heavy glitch") or "no skip glitch" (which for some reason is different from "no time-saving glitch"), and so forth. There isn't even a tag for "not a playaround", "no speed/entertainment tradeoffs", or "uses real time instead of in-game time".
...it seems that a number of tags aren't consistently used throughout the movies.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Habreno wrote:
The default should be Any% and anything that isn't should tell you what it is. Note that this does not mean all of these are vaultable, what is vaultable and what is not is not the discussion here.
Any% and full completion are the only things that are vaultable, how can they not mean a run is vaultable?
Habreno wrote:
100% should be a tag that includes both 100% categories directly and categories that don't follow the % formula directly but still imply a full completion (120 Stars comes to mind as an example). I also feel that "obtain all pokemon" should fall under this category, though there may be a reason it does not.
Low% should be a tag for runs that complete the game with a minimum % of items or minimum amount of items, where this is slower than just beating the game normally (as failing this it would just be Any%). This should be applied. If more than one Low% is possible, you can use descriptions to differentiate the TASes.
All Levels should be a tag for runs that complete all of the levels/dungeons/worlds/etc. that exist in the standard game in cases where this is not the 100% requirement and where skipping worlds/levels is a valid option. Note that this would not apply when you skip levels within a world but avoid skipping worlds, but *would* apply if you do all the worlds, but out of order (i.e. a warpless run for Mario would not be All Levels, but a run that beats all the levels, even if it does so out of order would be All Levels). As stated before, this also doesn't apply where skipping levels is not an option at all.
We combine this with 100%, as they are both full completion.
Habreno wrote:
Playaround has been discussed prior, but should be more applied to TASes that don't aim for speed but instead show off technical capabilities of the game or console itself.
Max Score is a 100% alternative for games based on score and not a completion level, and should be the highest score obtainable in the game. This should not be used in cases where 100% is possible (i.e. Max Score and 100% should be mutually exclusive for a given game), even if score is different from 100%.
Best Ending, and its counterpart, Worst Ending, should be completion alternatives where the fastest ending is neither the best nor worst, assuming there are multiple endings. It's not necessary for this to be mutually exclusive with 100% or Max Score, but odds are it will be.
Special Goal should be for cases that do not fit under the above tags nor Any%, and could include esoteric goals (such as max coins) that are still optimized for speed (this being a key difference between playaround and special goal).
So that's the only thing that we're completely lacking. But see, your definition of it already differs from Niamek's, who's nevertheless agreeing with you.
Habreno wrote:
This could include a completion that goes beyond 100% (such as All Permanent Flags, to use an example from Twilight Princess- in addition to 100% we aim to set every permanent flag in the game, which includes opening every chest as well as other things) as well as encompassing some rather obscure glitch categories that don't fall under the above tags.
This part perfectly describes full completion. If something has 101%, or additional tasks that add to completion, we still count these as full completion. You can't go for completion fuller than full, can you? You just have to define it.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Bobo the King wrote:
I normally don't mind TASVideos' resistance to change, but in this case, Niamek is proposing such a small, inconsequential, and easy-to-implement change that I think it's a pretty good idea.
I'd be interested in arguments against it from someone in addition to feos.
I'd be interested in actually disproving my points. I'll sum them up for you:
Not descriptive at all
"Everything that isn't vaultable/any%/100%" tells nothing about what a movie actually has, that isn't already told by existing tags.
Barely usable list page
When you open a movie list of some 10 movies, or even 50, you can scroll through them and make a point about each one, deciding whether you like it or not, or whether you want to watch it or not. When you have a list of 400 movies, it loads very slowly due to screenshots, and it can barely be evaluated in its entirety. Movie lists provide the only way to observe just one needed tag, and it's unusably heavy for huge tags.
Post #421689Post #425565Judge required
Some experienced person will have to go through the entire Moons and Stars lists and check whether a run is vaultable or not. In some cases it can be obvious, it some cases it can be tricky. So you can't rely on mere volunteers, because when we did, it resulted in an absolute mess with branch names.
Inability to strictly define
This thread only has so many posts and there's already a disagreement on what this tag should represent. Read my links on what extra ambiguity can be caused when you try to clearly distinguish between "fastest possible" and all the rest:
Post #373655Post #373887Counterpart movie class
If some feature has only one variation, and it's rare, we mark the runs that use it (pacifist, suboptimal character, playaround). If some feature appears in several forms, we mark them all (warps: used or avoided; multiplayer: amount of players used; difficulty: hardest or easiest; memory corruption: used or avoided). These are only used when they are actually applicable, as in, when a game allows for one of these options.
Now look at "special goal". Every game allows it. So for every game you will have to use some version of that tag. Something like "any%/100%/special goal", where you will have to tag all existing movies. If you only tag those that need "special goal", you are being selective and inconsistent with the existing system.
Staff other than feos
Have fun convincing Nach and adelikat.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
Radiant wrote:
feos wrote:
If you label, say, 30% of the runs "Uses a special goal", then you also have to label the rest 70% "Avoids special goals".
That doesn't appear to be the case. Only 309 of all movies are tagged with either "Uses death to save time" or "Forgoes time-saving death". Only 123 movies are tagged with "warps" or "no warps". Only 178 are tagged with "skip glitch" (which is somehow distinct from "heavy glitch") or "no skip glitch" (which for some reason is different from "no time-saving glitch"), and so forth. There isn't even a tag for "not a playaround", "no speed/entertainment tradeoffs", or "uses real time instead of in-game time".
...it seems that a number of tags aren't consistently used throughout the movies.
Forgoing tags like "forgoes death", "forgoes damage", and so on are generally taken to mean that they could've been used, and could have made a faster movie had they been used, but were deliberately chosen to be avoided. They would not apply in games where death/damage etc. cannot be used to save time, and would not apply in games that have no sane definition for it in general (How would you define forgoing taking damage in Tetris? How would you define forgoing death in Solitaire?)
Making tags like these have to apply to the 70% or 90% of all movies that don't do the described thing of course would make no sense.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Not descriptive at all
"Everything that isn't vaultable/any%/100%" tells nothing about what a movie actually has, that isn't already told by existing tags.
The tag is not for describing a movie. It's more for filtering movie. Isn't that what tags are for?
feos wrote:
Barely usable list page
When you open a movie list of some 10 movies, or even 50, you can scroll through them and make a point about each one, deciding whether you like it or not, or whether you want to watch it or not. When you have a list of 400 movies, it loads very slowly due to screenshots, and it can barely be evaluated in its entirety. Movie lists provide the only way to observe just one needed tag, and it's unusably heavy for huge tags.
I disagree. They have special goals or restriction that might make it enjoyable for viewers. I for one enjoy this kind of goal. Most of my favourite movies has special goals.
feos wrote:
Judge required
Some experienced person will have to go through the entire Moons and Stars lists and check whether a run is vaultable or not. In some cases it can be obvious, it some cases it can be tricky. So you can't rely on mere volunteers, because when we did, it resulted in an absolute mess with branch names.
I can't erase the past. Maybe the future is different from the past?
feos wrote:
Inability to strictly define
This thread only has so many posts and there's already a disagreement on what this tag should represent. Read my links on what extra ambiguity can be caused when you try to clearly distinguish between "fastest possible" and all the rest:
Post #373655Post #373887
At first my question was more about including playaround or not, but it can be included... How is "everything not any% or 100%" not well defined?
feos wrote:
Counterpart movie class
If some feature has only one variation, and it's rare, we mark the runs that use it (pacifist, suboptimal character, playaround). If some feature appears in several forms, we mark them all (warps: used or avoided; multiplayer: amount of players used; difficulty: hardest or easiest; memory corruption: used or avoided). These are only used when they are actually applicable, as in, when a game allows for one of these options.
Yeah it overlaps them. What about the existing tags? Major skip glitch that could be overlapped by Heavy glitch abuse? Most of Major skip glitch movies has heavy glitch abuse as tag too...
feos wrote:
Now look at "special goal". Every game allows it. So for every game you will have to use some version of that tag. Something like "any%/100%/special goal", where you will have to tag all existing movies. If you only tag those that need "special goal", you are being selective and inconsistent with the existing system.
Fine, let's tag all non play-around movie with a "not a play around tag".
Forgoing tags like "forgoes death", "forgoes damage", and so on are generally taken to mean that they could've been used, and could have made a faster movie had they been used, but were deliberately chosen to be avoided.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense than feos's explanation.
Making tags like these have to apply to the 70% or 90% of all movies that don't do the described thing of course would make no sense.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Niamek wrote:
feos wrote:
Not descriptive at all
"Everything that isn't vaultable/any%/100%" tells nothing about what a movie actually has, that isn't already told by existing tags.
The tag is not for describing a movie. It's more for filtering movie. Isn't that what tags are for?
When a user picks a movie tag to observe what it has, he has the idea of what he wants to see. All existing tags are very clear and descriptive, so you won't get confused by how they apply to movies.
"Side goal" tag will end up having the majority of existing tags, with all sorts of contradictions between the movie goals, that are still somehow all put together.
Niamek wrote:
feos wrote:
Barely usable list page
When you open a movie list of some 10 movies, or even 50, you can scroll through them and make a point about each one, deciding whether you like it or not, or whether you want to watch it or not. When you have a list of 400 movies, it loads very slowly due to screenshots, and it can barely be evaluated in its entirety. Movie lists provide the only way to observe just one needed tag, and it's unusably heavy for huge tags.
I disagree. They have special goals or restriction that might make it enjoyable for viewers. I for one enjoy this kind of goal. Most of my favourite movies has special goals.
How does your preference of them disprove the point of huge pages being barely usable? See the posts I linked on why huge lists are not a good thing.
Niamek wrote:
feos wrote:
Inability to strictly define
This thread only has so many posts and there's already a disagreement on what this tag should represent. Read my links on what extra ambiguity can be caused when you try to clearly distinguish between "fastest possible" and all the rest:
Post #373655Post #373887
At first my question was more about including playaround or not, but it can be included... How is "everything not any% or 100%" not well defined?
"Everything not any% or 100%" is well defined, but it's not what Habreno wants the new tag to be.
Niamek wrote:
feos wrote:
Counterpart movie class
If some feature has only one variation, and it's rare, we mark the runs that use it (pacifist, suboptimal character, playaround). If some feature appears in several forms, we mark them all (warps: used or avoided; multiplayer: amount of players used; difficulty: hardest or easiest; memory corruption: used or avoided). These are only used when they are actually applicable, as in, when a game allows for one of these options.
Yeah it overlaps them. What about the existing tags? Major skip glitch that could be overlapped by Heavy glitch abuse? Most of Major skip glitch movies has heavy glitch abuse as tag too...
feos wrote:
Now look at "special goal". Every game allows it. So for every game you will have to use some version of that tag. Something like "any%/100%/special goal", where you will have to tag all existing movies. If you only tag those that need "special goal", you are being selective and inconsistent with the existing system.
Fine, let's tag all non play-around movie with a "not a play around tag".
What I'm saying is that when the tag is applicable at all, it can require a counterpart if there are several ways of applying it, several ways of using the feature it represents. "Side goal" is applicable to all runs in a way that they either use it or avoid, but they all can have it. Not all runs can have "uses warps" or "avoids warps". Read my post carefully to see how it works.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
feos wrote:
When a user picks a movie tag to observe what it has, he has the idea of what he wants to see. All existing tags are very clear and descriptive, so you won't get confused by how they apply to movies.
"Side goal" tag will end up having the majority of existing tags, with all sorts of contradictions between the movie goals, that are still somehow all put together.
They will all have some unifying constant in that they're, well, side goals. You know you can expect something that is not a standard (any%/100%) way of completion.
Besides, having movie goals not perfectly overlap with each other is not a weird thing anyway. Take the 100% tags for example, where one is "all bosses", another is "maximum score", or another is "all items". All different things, that doesn't mean they can't fit under one banner.
feos wrote:
How does your preference of them disprove the point of huge pages being barely usable? See the posts I linked on why huge lists are not a good thing.
Pages up to 1000 entries are still pretty much usable, and regardless of the precise definition, this tag would come nowhere close. My estimates put it at around 200 movies.
Besides which, we already have various tags with more entries than that. "Takes damage to save time" has as of this writing 987 entries, and one of the genre tags has more than 1000 as well. If you really think this is an issue, then you would want to discuss removing those tags first.
feos wrote:
"Everything not any% or 100%" is well defined, but it's not what Habreno wants the new tag to be.
This is why I posit "everything not vaultable", as it is well defined according to the judgment logic that the site runs on.
feos wrote:
What I'm saying is that when the tag is applicable at all, it can require a counterpart if there are several ways of applying it, several ways of using the feature it represents. "Side goal" is applicable to all runs in a way that they either use it or avoid, but they all can have it. Not all runs can have "uses warps" or "avoids warps". Read my post carefully to see how it works.
"Playaround" is applicable to basically every game/run as well. Does that mean that we should tag every non-playaround run? We also have a "single level" tag, which also can apply to any game, so should we also introduce a tag to list all movies that beat the game, or that beat more than one level?
Bottom line is, there are quite a few tags that are technically applicable to every game. That doesn't mean they should have a counterpart, especially if that counterpart would encompass the majority of movies on this site. "Aims for fastest time" as a tag was removed for this exact reason. So the argument of requiring a counterpart tag does not really work.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Mothrayas wrote:
They will all have some unifying constant in that they're, well, side goals. You know you can expect something that is not a standard (any%/100%) way of completion.
Besides, having movie goals not perfectly overlap with each other is not a weird thing anyway. Take the 100% tags for example, where one is "all bosses", another is "maximum score", or another is "all items". All different things, that doesn't mean they can't fit under one banner.
It still tells nothing useful to me, if people really want to be told the same thing, fine.
Mothrayas wrote:
Pages up to 1000 entries are still pretty much usable, and regardless of the precise definition, this tag would come nowhere close. My estimates put it at around 200 movies.
Besides which, we already have various tags with more entries than that. "Takes damage to save time" has as of this writing 987 entries, and one of the genre tags has more than 1000 as well. If you really think this is an issue, then you would want to discuss removing those tags first.
Practically useless in my opinion, but if people really want to drown in such pages, fine.
Mothrayas wrote:
This is why I posit "everything not vaultable", as it is well defined according to the judgment logic that the site runs on.
This is clear and could in theory be applied, except that Niamel explained on IRC that he just wants the movies missing from the tags that still have special goals to be easy to find. In the "unvaultable" form, such movies will still drown in all the existing tags. If people really want that, fine.
Mothrayas wrote:
"Playaround" is applicable to basically every game/run as well. Does that mean that we should tag every non-playaround run? We also have a "single level" tag, which also can apply to any game, so should we also introduce a tag to list all movies that beat the game, or that beat more than one level?
Bottom line is, there are quite a few tags that are technically applicable to every game. That doesn't mean they should have a counterpart, especially if that counterpart would encompass the majority of movies on this site. "Aims for fastest time" as a tag was removed for this exact reason. So the argument of requiring a counterpart tag does not really work.
Good point, I would agree on only tagging those that actually need the proposed tag, if the tag didn't have the above problems.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Yes that was the first definition I had in mind. However, it's not a good definition since it would remove some categories arbitrarily. Mothrayas' definition might be better if we want to avoid a grey area.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
feos wrote:
if people really want to be told the same thing, fine.
feos wrote:
if people really want to drown in such pages, fine.
feos wrote:
If people really want that, fine.
feos wrote:
[I would agree]... ...if the tag didn't have the above problems.
Well, judging by "above problems", they don't seem that insurmountable if you're fine with all of them.
By the way, regarding an earlier point:
feos wrote:
Judge required
Some experienced person will have to go through the entire Moons and Stars lists and check whether a run is vaultable or not. In some cases it can be obvious, it some cases it can be tricky. So you can't rely on mere volunteers, because when we did, it resulted in an absolute mess with branch names.
I'm down for doing this, if there is an agreement in this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
One last issue remains.
feos wrote:
Staff other than feos
Have fun convincing Nach and adelikat.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
