Leaderboard

You could try asking XPRTNovice or Detective Tuesday?

Is everyone planning on doing a show-and-tell of what they received? I'm interested to know what kind of plunder everyone got ( if you're will to share such information )

No problem! I just attempted to do it by ear. (don't worry, didn't take 3 hours) https://app.box.com/s/8gtdgtmcn16zz392wqq7fwsyldqskc4y

Ok that is a fallacy argument that I can't let stand. And you did indirectly mention his lack of embiggening when you said "Cloud's apparent anorexia". I am also triggered by your assertion that hamburgers make people fat. I say someone who is as drug-addled as Cloud (yes Mako can be considered a drug) is thin because of his bad health, which even thin people can have. Has nothing to do with whether he eats burgers.

Wow, okay, this makes a lot more sense now. However it doesn't agree with every definition of sexism, some of which pertain to beliefs and attitudes, not just physical (or verbal) actions. So even if you're purely motivating reaction according to action, I think fundamentally the way you're describing people is wrong. You're saying you're not trying to evaluate anyone, but calling a person sexist and calling them out for doing a sexist thing are different reactions. I don't think I'm trying to say they're not sexist if they don't know their actions are sexist. I'm saying doing sexist actions doesn't ma- Sorry, nothing makes you sexist until you satisfy the definition of being a sexist, many of these definitions pertain to belief/attitudes about sex/gender superiority, and not specifically actions. So you're not wrong by some definitions, but you are by others. It's a spectrum, and so your absolute assertions are irresponsible. According to definitions that pertain to belief/attitude: If I do something that objectifies women, but I don't believe that men have any more humanity or that women are objects that doesn't make me sexist, that just means I'm doing something sexist. This is because the action -> belief feedback argument doesn't work because there are many reasons besides full agreement that motivate an action. I said this earlier: money. A lot of this stuff is economically motivated because of money. The game developers or artists may or may not have actual creative input and/or take actions that agree with their own beliefs. Sure, their output is sexist but that doesn't mean all of those people are sexist people for doing it. In fact, not even the person who made that business decision would be sexist either; if he only cares about money and success and doesn't really care either way, the only thing you can evaluate him as is greedy in the face of hurting minorities because it's the status quo. I'm not interested in "you're wrong, and yes they are sexist", I'm looking for an explanation as to why you don't think the variable motivation for an action is negligible in determining if someone is a sexist person if I can clearly come up with an example in which a person performing a sexist action does not line up with a number of definitions of sexism.

At least some questions are getting answered with this trailer about what they are planning on doing with the soundtrack. Looks like it won't be a completely original score after all. As much as I was worried about them FF10/FF13'ing it and making it too linear I am significantly more concerned about Cloud's apparent anorexia. Someone get that guy a hamburger!!

Hrmm I probably put it a little strong. I think Cloud's skin should definitely have the type of look it does (and I especially dig the facial details) due to the Mako.. CID should definitely have the smoker look to him more than Cloud who had a different type of toxin, but I doubt they will go as far as what you'd expect in real life for someone of that age. I think what they made clear with the other characters (who appear much more clean) is that living under the plate for so long didn't have too much negative affect on them. Maybe they sell special lotion. Maybe it's weird that I judged all the characters based on their skin quality.

That kind of reeks of "objective reality" type philosophy, be careful with that. It's also a bad method of evaluation; generally an action is meaningless without context and a history to measure it against in relativity. This is how media can basically turn any "action" into any "meaning" or "evaluation" they want. They take some snippet of something they see from their armchairs and then interpret it how they see fit.

Easily the biggest influence for this track was Dirty Loops. Also, Japanese Fusion bands like T-Square and Casiopea, and other Fusion artists like Alex Argento, Marco Sfogli, Guthrie Govan, The Aristocrats, etc.

Yep, this is outside of what we look for. NO OVERRIDE

I really love what Nostalvania did here - the blend of carefree jazzy piano, smooth EP, nice organ, funky bassline, and solid drums give a completely new, creative treatment of this overpopular source. Wish it was longer, though. But other than that, very cool work!

Sorry dude, but a remix that draws this heavily from a direct-MP3 rip from the source tune is not kosher with our standards. This sounds really cool, but the entire track is built as layers over the original source tune, which is a no-go as far as this site is concerned. NO OVERRIDE

I got them this morning! It was a nice surprise . Looking forward to the other half! To my secret santa recipient - I got a nice gift that I have ready to ship, I will ship it out next Monday for all your joy later next week!

Aaaah!

Above and beyond your misunderstanding of the George Zimmerman case (the Stand Your Ground law was not used as part of his legal defense), you're missing the point. You can't be put on trial for "being a huge douchebag", and "but I'm a good person" isn't a valid legal defense for committing a crime. The point is that the justice system doesn't care about your moral character, it cares about your actions. Of course, using lethal force to defend yourself is a different action than committing murder. The whole point of the trial was to determine which Zimmerman had done. No one disputes the fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Treyvon Martin, but the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder rather than self defense, so he was acquitted. He wasn't found not guilty by reason of being a really stand-up guy. He was found not guilty because they couldn't prove that the actions that he took constituted murder. Anyway, the entire justice system thing is a derail. Timaeus, you originally made the argument that what someone does doesn't define what they are. Here's the original quote: This is incredibly silly. If you do sexist things, then you're sexist. That's what "being sexist" means. You can't say "sure, I do sexist things, but I'm not a sexist". It's nonsensical. A sexist is someone who does sexist things. It's like saying "yeah, I stole something, but that doesn't make me a thief." Yes, it does make you a thief. That's what "thief" means. What you think about your actions doesn't matter. Doing sexist things makes you sexist, regardless of what you thought you were doing. No, that may mean you're only accidentally sexist and someone just needs to educate you along the lines of "hey man, don't do that, that's sexist". Which is great and all, but it doesn't make what you're doing not sexist.

^ I am impressed by your remarks you should're in the panel of judges with technical musician words you are a person with experience Mr. timaeus