It's for the greater good.
The Code Vault needs a regular moderator. It is too large and too infrequently visited to be monitored by the S-Mods as the Spamzone has been in the past. For example, the following sections of the Code Vault rules promise infractions and the like, however the Coders are unable to give them out. (Emphasis mine.) Also, you speak of differing duties between Sectional Moderators and Coders here: What is the difference between their duties? I was under the impression that Coders looked after their section (the Code Vault), as Sectional Moderators look after theirs, in addition to posting codes. To me, it appears that the duty of 'sectional moderator' for the Code Vault falls upon the Coders. What duties do the Sectional Moderators have that the Coders do not? That aside, I hold true to the idea that Coders need access to infractions and the like, to sufficiently manage the Code Vault. This could take the form of a single Sec-Mod-Coder. But it should be someone with an active interest in coding and the Code Vault, for as has been established for a long while, the rest of staff don't visit or deal with the Code Vault on a regular basis, when ideally, the one handing out code-related infractions should be strongly familiar with the Code Vault and its rules.
Goddamn traitors. My liege, I will strike them down in your name, so that all may know the glory of Deathspank2!
Seriously? Deathspank? You're back?
Hey, guys, as this appears to be getting somewhat dead, I'm going to try out a new rules system this round, unless there are objections. It's a big deviation from the norm, and I'm mostly doing it as an experiment to dust out the cobwebs and the like. If it's liked, it can continue for a few more rounds. If not, we can scrap it. Because it's different, it's only fair to have participants who have already signed up to this round re-express interest in playing. So without further ado, here are the rules for this round: Death Note Game Dustin' Out the Cobwebs Edition Shinigami There is one Shinigami. The Shinigami manages the game, selects the roles for each player and makes stuff work. The Shinigami is not a player, and as such does not count towards player-count, nor can he be targeted by abilities. The Shinigami PMs each person with their role at the beginning of the game. Kira Two Kira are selected. The Kira consult together and can kill one person per day by PMing the Shinigami. There are no restrictions on who they can kill. The Shinigami will post their kill each day. If the Kira outnumber or are equal to the remaining Detectives (including L and Watari), they are victorious. L L is allowed to investigate one person per day. He does this by PMing the name of one person to the Shinigami. He will be PM'd a result telling him whether the chosen person is innocent or guilty at the end of the day. Watari Watari is able to shield one person from the Kira per day. He may not shield himself. If the Kira target the person he is shielding, they fail to kill that day. Detectives Everyone else is a Detective. The Detectives have no specific abilities. Voting Each day, everyone votes on one person to execute on suspicion of being Kira. Votes are made by posting in the thread with the line, 'I vote...' At the end of the day, the person with the most votes is killed. It is possible to vote to kill no one. If votes are equal, a RNG will be used to determine who is executed. Votes can be altered up until an hour before the end of the day (and will be accepted up until the day-end). Everything else When a player dies, his role is revealed. Screenshotting PMs is disallowed. The 'day' starts and ends at a set time. Seven people minimum are required to play. (Excluding Shinigami) No, it doesn't bear any resemblance to Mafia
Yeah. I'm putting forward the idea of following the setup of Coders being Sectional Moderators AND Coders. (As the Forum Leaders page already seems to believe.)
Reasonable. A difference between Sectional Moderators and Coders has been established. Sectional Moderators are interviewed. Coders are not. Logically following through. If Coders are not interviewed, then they should not have the same power as a Sectional Moderator. I'm curious as to what these differences are. The Code Vault is a section just like any other, so I would assume that it requires the same degree of moderation as any other section. As before, a difference between the Code Vault and the other sections should be established, otherwise it's a Fallacy of Special Pleading. For a long time, I was under the impression that this was already established. Coders are under the Sectional Moderator area on the Forum Leaders page. I thought that the username was simply to make it easier to differentiate between Coders and Moderators for the members. A Coder posts codes and moderates the section. Ordinary members are still able to post codes. Therefore the difference between a Coder and a normal member is that the Coder moderates the Code Vault. If someone is unable to pass the Staff interview, they should not be given any Staff powers. Deletion of posts and verbal warnings should not be powers given to those who have not been confirmed to act responsibly. Ordinary members can still post codes, even if they are unable to pass the interview. I suggest instating the interview process for Coders, and given them full Sectional Moderator abilities. The duty they perform is the same as the Sectional Moderator, so they should have the same powers. Likewise, they should have the same checks put in place as the Sectional Moderators do with the interview. I sufficiently covered this in my post here. Possibly. Her reason could have only applied back then, or there could be a better way of handling it. Either way, I'd feel far more confident putting my faith in presented arguments by the current members/staff, instead of unstated arguments by staff of years ago.
Coders moderate a section. Sectional Moderaters moderate a section. The moderation required the Coders' section is not substantially different to the moderation required for the Sectional Moderators' sections. Therefore, Coders should be given the same abilities as a Sectional Moderator. To argue that Coders don't require this power to perform their duties would be a Fallacy of Special Pleading, because there is no distinction between the duties of a Coder and the duties of a Sectional Moderator. To argue against giving Coders power, one must differentiate between Coders and Sectional Mods by proving that Coders do not require the power, while Sectional Moderators do.
Yeah, now that makes sense. I didn't know that it was going to be used for Street Fighter too, so it seemed a bit out there and unrelated. If it's a Street Fighter channel, it works. Similarly, I didn't know about the banner-exclusivity. Considering that, my criticism of the placement was too harsh. /notayoutubeexpert
Yes, it's rather... 'interesting'. The protagonist narrates the entire book in it, so it can be rather irritating. Interesting, but dense to get through.
Voting for Haruhi, because I never got around to finishing that one. (It is the second one, isn't it?) Let it be known that I find it mildly humourous that Lolita was rejected, while A Clockwork Orange is up there. Also, can we recommend web comics/visual novels and other mediums covered by the Literature Section other than books?
The final book in the Harry Potter series was lackluster. It was a letdown by the author for me. The mass killings were unnecessary. The quest for the Horcruxes was dull and a widget-quest filler. The introduction of the Deathly Hallows this late into the game was also disappointing, for we were unprepared for them. Also, the final battle between Harry and Voldemort was extremely anti-climactic, and not a fulfillment of the fans' wishes to see a proper fight. Too many new charaters were introduced too. By the seventh book, we should be done with new characters, and instead be focusing on developing old characters. Oh, and the epilogue sucked. Period. Overall, I felt that it was an extremely disappointing end to an otherwise-good series. Firstly, let's cover the killings. In previous books, Rowling had killed off people to develop the situation and to provoke an emotional response from the audience, be it to darken the tone of the story, or to expose more about the characters themselves. When Cedric Diggery was murdered in The Goblet of Fire, it was significant. Despite being a fairly minor character, the tone of the entire story changed. It became one where main characters could, and would, die. The suspense introduced by that one death was enormous. Furthermore, the characters' reaction to the death was significant. Harry had nightmares about him all the way into the opening of the next book. The effect of his death was explored from every character's perspective, from Cho Change to Cedric's father. The deaths in The Deathly Hallows had no such significance. People were killed off simply to wrap up loose ends. Mad-eye was given a few lines to tell us that he had been killed, and that was that. Hedwig was killed off, and then nothing was done with her. Dobby's death was handled relatively well, as he was given his 15 minutes of fame, along with a heroic sacrifice. The same cannot be said of the many, many deaths in the final battle, in which people were killed off and never mentioned again. That's not to say that there can't be shameful, unheroic, realistic death in the stories. Cedric Diggery's was not heroic, yet it was still handled superbly. No so for others. Rowling attempted to use death as a means of ending a character arc, but to use death in such a manner is not an effective way of tying up loose ends, and simply cheats the reader. Some may argue that Rowling was doing this on purpose, so as to display the cruelty and senseless death of war, and purposefully hardening the reader's heart to the many deaths. While this is a valid argument on the surface, underneath, there is a gaping problem with it. Namely, readers are still being cheated out of a satisfying conclusion to their character arcs. Readers don't want to be desensitised to character death, because it ruins all attachment they built up to the character. Furthermore, for Rowling herself, it's a bad idea to attempt to desensitise readers, because while it may increase the feeling that it's a 'real war', it also stops the readers from caring about it at all, and ultimately cheapens death. The quest for the Horcruxes was also a bad idea. it removed Harry and the gang from Hogwarts, the place where the story was centered, and instead sent them wandering the globe, looking for various objects. In this quest, The Deathly Hallows ceases to be Harry Potter, and instead becomes Deltora Quest. Gathering widgets through a series of separated missions is dull, repetitive, and bores the reader to death. This is even more apparent when the quest to find these widgets is introduced in the second-to-last book, with the majority of the widgets left to be found in a single entry to the series. The widget quest dominated the story, and rather than taking the previous tension and building up to a climax, instead thoroughly killed the suspense. What makes this even worse is how it was tediously drawn out. The Horcrux found in the sixth book was revealed as a fake, thus requiring a good portion of the final book to be devoted to it. Aside from such an enormous waste of time, this increased the duration of the widget quest, and made the entire seventh entry to the series feel far longer than it should. Rowling’s love for the number seven is all very well, but when it begins to impact the story as a whole, it is time to cut back. During the final battle, Harry should be dealing with the many challenges built up over the previous books, not trying to complete a widget quest revealed in the penultimate one. The sudden reveal of the widget quest is cheating the readers of the resolution to other parts of the story that they care about, and instead wastes their time and attention with a quest they do not care about. Likewise, the quest for the Deathly Hallows was equally unimportant to the plot of the story. While it added to the backstory of Harry’s cloak, the remaining two were unnecessary and detracted from the plot. The resurrection stone added to Rowling’s message of ‘death is natural’, but did little else. The wand, on the other hand, became a key plot point of the entire book, and was the decisive factor in the final confrontation. This was an incredibly bad idea, because it was jumped upon the readers, instead of being properly presented in previous books. By the final book, nearly all the pieces should be in place, and the climax should be rising. To take time out of that to spend time on a new plot device is weak writing. In a similar vein, the sudden breaking of Harry’s wand was little more than a Diabolus Ex Machina to force the plot to accommodate the new wand. His wand was placed under far more strain in the previous books without snapping. To then break it as soon as an all-powerful wand was introduced is little more than the writer forcibly intervening in the natural progression of the story. Like the Horcruxes, the Deathly Hallows were a widget quest. However, unlike the Horcruxes, they were even more pointless, for they were unnecessary to the story at all The introduction of the Elder Wand led to the final battle between Voldemort and Harry coming down to an anti-climax. The entire story up until that moment was about Harry Potter developing as a wizard, coming to best Voldemort. Certainly, it’s been a motif that Voldemort’s pure skill was inferior to the power of love, and that needs to be reflected in the final battle. The battle did not have such a conclusion though. Harry won through serendipitous chance. A Deus Ex Machina. Instead of the Elder Wand belonging to Voldemort, it turned out to belong to Draco, who had been disarmed by Harry earlier, meaning it was now luckily in Harry’s possession, so he could easily win the final duel in a single spell. Such an anti-climax is unacceptable for a book with so great of a build up to that one fight. The battle felt rushed and unfinished, with Rowling not knowing how to have the hero, Harry Potter, overthrow the villain. Deprived of the previous methods Harry used (namely, his mother’s protection) she resorted to introducing the widget quest of the Deathly Hallows to resolve the final fight. This decision leaves readers unsatisfied, and disappointed with the outcome of the battle, and as a consequence, disillusioned with the series. Also important to note is how the character built up over the past few books were neglected in development. Rowling attempted to cheat the readers out of this deserved development of character by killing them off so as to provide a resolution for their story. However this is still unsatisfactory for the readers, because it cheapens death and does not bring a fitting end to the character arcs, as previously discussed. In other cases, characters are neglected entirely. This is partially due to the setting of The Deathly Hallows being different to the rest of the books. By not being situated in Hogwarts, the story is unable to deal with the majority of the people introduced in other books. Instead, newer characters are introduced and developed in the space of a single book. This is not what the readers want, because it is not dealing with the characters they have grown accustomed to. Certainly, some characters were developed and fleshed out, such as Snape, while others, such as Fred and George, were reduced to being victims of the off-to-the-side death. We do not even get to see how the remaining twin deals with the death of his partner. It’s incredibly disconcerting to the reader, and leaves the reader with the feeling that Rowling does not care. This is only emphasized in the epilogue to the story, which was little better than fanfiction. Instead of seeing how every character dealt with the defeat of Voldemort, we are left with but a generic snapshot of Harry on platform 9¾. It’s incredibly disconcerting to have such an unfulfilling epilogue from an author who usually packs her books with as much detail as possible, and does not fulfill reader expectations. Overall, I felt that The Deathly Hallows was an unsatisfactory end to an otherwise acceptable series. It deviated too heavily from the bases laid out in the previous books and introduced too many new plot points. While it did attempt to deal with many of the characters, it did not deal with them sufficiently, especially in regards to death and the epilogue.
This. Is. Awesome.
Name changes causing errors is something that occurs over all vBulletin boards. I've seen it on other boards too. Some refuse name changes entirely, due to the damage it causes the boards. To be honest, I'm surprised we allow them with the regularity that we do. The name-change one isn't really one I'd press for, as Misty has said that she's fine with doing the job herself, and the name change thread makes it easier to follow who's who. But hey, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.
Because if something is deleted there, there is a good chance it was deleted for a reason, and having the member know the reason is good. You're right in the sense that we probably could cut it without much effect. But why disable it when it won't do any harm to have it enabled?
I'd suggest just RP section, due to the thread deletions that go on there. If a post of mine is deleted in Spam, I still want to know what I did wrong. (Although chances are if it's deleted in Spamzone, I'll also be getting a nice infraction.) We could leave it enabled for all sections, then disable them later on, once we've seen the results and the like. If a forum turns out to be a problem, it's easy enough to disable.
I look at the top of the page for something eye catching. I look at the video. This is what I look at every time I go to your channel. I look along your bio once, if you're lucky. I only need to read it once, after all. So why add the (very nice) logo along the side where no one will see it? I like the aesthetic of it, but I think the positioning was a bad decision. Even moving it up a bit would be a good idea. Currently, if I want to look at the logo, I have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page. You want the viewer to be able to see the logo at all times, so that they remember your channel. As the viewer is presumably going to be looking at the video, it'd make sense to display the logo in view of the video. Of course, you then have to worry about distractions, which you've done a nice job of avoiding. Plain black with purple highlights is an effective way of being memorable without being ridiculously over-the-top. The viewer is, after all, there to view videos. Your layout works well in that regard. I don't get the guy standing under the 'like' button though. He doesn't seem to have too much to do with the overall theme, nor the channel subject matter (Call of Duty). I suppose he could be a mascot or something similar though. I like how the rest of the layout ties in with the CoD theme though. Slightly futuristic, without being obnoxiously so.
references
Okay, time to circumvent death and become a god. Let's see... 1. Neon Genesis Evangelion – Become one with everything. 2. Serial Experiments Lain – The wired makes me into a god, or at the very least, immortal. 3. Gurren Lagann – Spiral Power can do some wacky things, including immortality. 4. Homestuck – Go God Tier, or at the least, live inside dream bubbles for eternity. 5. Higurashi no Naku Koro ni – Hoorah, time loops for immortality forever. The certain-death part is a tad offputting though. 6. Umineko no Naku Koro ni – Sure, I'm dead. At least I get to engage in epic afterlife debates. 7. Groundhog day – Again, time looping madness. 8. Harry Potter – Once I set up a horcrux or two, I'm sweet. 9. Ender's Game – Death evasion via computers and life webs and a whole lot of other stuff. 10. The Bible – Because getting the chance to go back in time and assassinate Jesus from God himself is just too awesome to pass up.
Yeah, the remaining members of this place (i.e. FKB and me) have migrated over to Voxli.
