Newt
-
Posts
177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Newt
-
-
1 hour ago, Neblix said:
So, just to be clear, you're saying funds should be used to outsource these tasks to others, instead of compensating the current staff to do them?
I would spend funds on things volunteers are unable or unwilling to do. The likely course would be that these would go to some third party, yes; as the presumption is that current volunteers are unable to manage said duties. There are also fewer issues around corruption.
I don't have an issue with staff being paid, but the money would need to come from somewhere. And if something could be done on a volunteer basis that's clearly better for the organization.
This is not complicated.
-
4 minutes ago, zircon said:
I want to re-pose a question I asked before that nobody answered, for those that are against YT monetization. Google ads are already almost dead. In a year let's say they are completely dead. Now imagine Patreon goes away, because maybe Patreon itself is shut down or gets purchased. Who knows? That kind of stuff happens every day in silicon valley.
How do you expect OCR to keep running in that scenario?
Now go a step further - imagine the trend continues of fewer and fewer people coming here and downloading MP3s, and more and more people going to YouTube. Imagine that the audience here shrinks to almost nothing while the YouTube channel becomes the #1 source of consuming the content.
Again: How does OCR keep running in that scenario?
I would expect OCR to run using ethical and legal means of generating revenue, and failing that to shut down.
-
1 minute ago, Neblix said:
Can you give examples of these things? I had provided examples of things that would be more easily completed by staff members if incentive would increase, so on the other side, what are these things you're referring to that would be paid for not by compensation staff but ______?
Sure.
Extending the site to directly link to users twitch/hitbox/whatever streams.
Mobile applications for browsing the site/forums/remixes.
If the remix tagging initiative isn't moving quickly, it may be possible to farm that out.
-
1 minute ago, Brandon Strader said:
We know two things: OCR is making operating costs plus surplus, and OC ReMixers ARE OCR -- if ever there was a staff responsible for a site existing, it's us.
Personally, I've been against money being involved since the beginning. But here we are.
In the legal definition, the remixers are not members of the OVERCLOCKED REMIX organization.
-
2 minutes ago, Kenogu Labz said:
If showing ads on YouTube has a moral thread to it that's fundamentally different from displaying ads on the side of a web page, please explain the reasoning for that. I've seen no-one in this discussion say anything more than 'it feels like it's more personal on a video instead of a page.' Feelings do not govern law or morality.
You should maybe read up on exactly what ethics is.
-
Even if you talk about part-time compensation, it's likely better to pay for things that otherwise would not be possible than those which will happen regardless. Especially with limited funds.
If the question is: "Do you think OCR should not be a primarily volunteer-driven organization?" then my answer would be to raise an eyebrow.
-
-
OCR likely doesn't have the cashflow to sustainably pay staff for regular operations. While it's a tremendous volunteer effort, there simply isn't money to cover full time staff. It's possible that they should be looking at contracting out some efforts. I don't know if their balance sheet has enough cash on it to facilitate that either.
My assumption is that funds would be better spent getting projects finished that don't have significant available volunteer effort. It's also probably better to see if such efforts could gain volunteer support instead of draining the limited cash reserves.
In short, despite the tremendous volunteer effort OCR currently represents, I'm not sure it's large enough to facilitate paid full time staff. With limited funds, it's likely best to keep those to operating costs and things that can't be done without monetary cost.
Note that this isn't a moral judgement; I simply don't think OCR has enough money to do this without impacting other initiatives.
-
12 hours ago, Native Jovian said:
Like, actual breakfast, or a muffin under a heat lamp "breakfast"?
The second one, but it's better than most of your other mag options anyway...
-
6 hours ago, Patrick Burns said:
Much of this has been stated, but I thought it be helpful to have the ethics spoken to by another remixer who isn't on staff.
Regarding whether remixers should trust the staff --- the fact that 501c3 status is being voluntarily pursued by the staff should be enough to inspire trust. If you didn't know, it would mean that OCR would have to report publicly a lot of financial information, including revenues, expenses, and information on whether/how it compensates staff. And it would be a federal offense to intentionally misreport that information.
Regarding profit --- as has been pointed out, it appears that many of us here are unaware of what profit means. Both for-profit and non-profit companies would love to grow. Both would love to generate more money than they spend. The difference comes in what happens to that extra money. Both can chose to pour that extra money back into the company for it to grow (marketing, research and development, staffing, etc.), but only the for-profit has the option of distributing the profits to the owners/shareholders. That's the difference. Non-profits generate profit... they just have to pour that money back into the organization's stated purpose. And we have no reason to believe the OCR staff has done anything other than this, especially in light of them wanting to attain a certain legal status that requires them to publicly report exactly how they're doing this.
Regarding paying remixers --- that is immediately a for-profit situation, as zircon stated, and that immediately endangers fair use issues. "But wait, why is it legally OK for OCR to do it for themselves but not OK for them to pay Patrick Burns?" Because OCR is an organization with a stated public/artistic mission, no shareholders who profit from dividends or the sale of the organization, and uses the money in a certain fashion (soon-to-be legally obligated to use that money in a certain fashion, as the staff voluntarily desires). Patrick Burns has no binding, stated purpose for the greater good, and can use the money however he pleases---most likely a burrito bowl that will contribute to his BMI and increase the public healthcare burden (but even if I used it for my kids, it's still for-profit). In other words, the money going to OCR is fair-use because that gathered money has no other outlet than the further promotion of OCR's fair-use mission. I, on the other hand, can take the money anywhere.
Regarding testing the monetization quietly --- the entire idea "that someone should've asked us" is based on the unfounded assumption that OCR is doing something selfish. On the contrary, we have no reason to believe the money isn't going precisely back into the function which inspired every single remixer here to submit to OCR in the first place: visibility and community. (And soon we might have public documents to verify this, as the staff obviously desires.) Give me proof that anyone on staff is using the monetization for personal gain, and then I would agree that we should have been asked.
My feelings: OCR provides a platform which isn't within my skill set---a platform which would not exist through my own self-promotion, nor through the collective, individual self promotion of all remixers here. Even if you assume that the homepage's value is minimal, social media buoyancy doesn't come easy. I have been given no reason to distrust the staff, and the staff seems proactive in making their non-profit status official, thus providing some transparency.
It's important to remember that OCR is not a 501(c)(3) organization. Staff has been talking about registering for years, but has not done so.
If they were, 501(c)(3) organizations are not exempt from compensating their staff. Nor do I think they should be. Nor do I think OCR should not compensate their staff if they were in a position to do so and doing so would further the site's (not the staff's) interests.
501(c)(3) organizations *are* required to open their books. I am unable to say unequivocally that OCR has not given staff money, but it is unlikely any sum proffered directly or nefariously is meaningful because total revenue is not large. Were OCR a 501(c)(3) organization this would be plainly obvious
I do not know if OCR is registered as a non-profit organization. I do know that many states will not give nonprofit status to LLC's of which OCR claims to be (eg, footer on main site). The only business I was quickly able to find was registered in Virginia but appears to no longer be a going concern.
-
2 minutes ago, zircon said:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial
Creative Commons commissioned a professional market research study to determine people's views on this matter. What they found was that:
- Both creators and users generally consider uses that earn users money or involve online advertising to be commercial. My take: Based on this, as far as OCR is concerned, it wouldn't make a difference whether the "online advertising" is on a website or on YouTube.
I agree with you. Both on OCR and YouTube this behaviour would be classified by both creators and users as commercial.
-
1 hour ago, zircon said:
Because it's making money for a non-profit organization, one where all staff are volunteers, and because you agreed to it in the submission agreement. If that isn't compelling, why not?
From a legal perspective, it makes a huge difference how and for what reason money is generated, and where that money goes. If a charity uses a track of mine to raise some money, I look at that very differently than if a for-profit corporation does. Or maybe the opposite. I might not be OK with some charities using my music, but I might be OK with some corporations using it. In any case, who/why is relevant to me. Why is it not relevant to you?
1 hour ago, zircon said:The site staff, djp included, have not ever been paid... In a way it's even more "non-profit" than most non-profits.
snip snip; i don't think i'm cutting context though...
Neblix made arguments that the submission agreement may not be valid in this case. I am not a lawyer, I do not know if those arguments are valid. My understanding (as a non-lawyer) is that neither does anyone else until it's been tested in a court of law (or there is some very-likely applicable precedent of which i'm unaware).
You should avoid the non-profit thing, as it doesn't make the argument you're trying to get it to make. Non-profits generate tons of revenue each year, they simply can't account profit. Often the revenue goes directly to the board, or into a trust for their use. Non-profits are also not equivalent to charities. Even if they did, many charities have maintainers that line their pockets from their activities (I make no judgement of whether this is good/bad; I expect many earn their keep many times over).
That OCR barely generates enough revenue to keep itself running is indeed a concern. It's unfortunately irrelevant to the legality of this practice (neither of us qualified to make real judgments about). If OCR aims to generate revenue directly from its content, I would expect it to do so in a manner that complies with (at minimum) US federal laws/regulations. That some members of staff share this belief and apparently this was not vetted is concerning to me.
Not having money is not a valid defense for stealing, and concerns of single points of failure or unexpected costs are not a defense for not properly licensing content you monetize.
Copyright is serious and important; I would expect you of all people to recognize this as someone who licenses their content relatively successfully. I am unaware of any statute that makes unprofitable ventures immune to the legal necessities of licensing content.
Whether OCR can do this isn't something that needs to be discussed here. That is something staff should discuss with their accountant and lawyer.
If OCR can do this, whether they should is something that could be discussed, but IMO is largely irrelevant to my knowledge as the prior question has not been answered by anyone qualified to do so.
- zykO, Brandon Strader, Neifion and 1 other
-
4
-
Fascinating interview with the guy who reverse engineered the Saturn and designed a non-invasive mod chip for it. Should make the demo/mod scene a bit more exciting in the next few years.
-
On 4/13/2016 at 5:33 PM, BardicKnowledge said:
^Ono is the world's absolute best Internet troll. The dude could give lessons, haha.
On the video: quit complaining -- Bison didn't have the psycho crusher throughout most of Alpha, for instance. That dude is salty af -- he could power ScrubQuotes for a year alone.
The guy isn't wrong though. The story mode at ship was kind of sad, challenges didn't exist, no lobbies with more than two people, you couldn't get any of the DLC costumes, and most of the characters are same-y. I haven't looked at the figures, but generally people don't pull out the whole "this game did bad at retail" thing unless, you know, maybe the game did bad at retail (not that retail success is necessarily indicative of game quality..)
Saying the game hasn't had any issues is just being blind to the obvious.
-
This is still a fun game you should be playing.
-
16 hours ago, BardicKnowledge said:
Be an annoying bastard, that's how. His LP spinning attack is safe on block and doesn't look like it, so you can bait out lots of replies that will allow for full counters after you block.
Will this still work in another month or beyond the lowest level of play? It seems like a weak gimmick used to take down bad players.
-
I played through the demo... The game just feels bad. They seemingly put all the emphasis on the combat, but it's not as good as devil may cry, god of war, dark souls, monster hunter, or even ragnarok odyssey.
-
Razer uses a cheap knockoff of cherry switches in their boards. If you're looking for something a little bit nicer but still reasonable, Cooler Master has a line of mechanical boards (CM storm) that's built solidly with standard cherry switches. They're commonly on sale at newegg or amazon.
An overview of cherry switch types if you aren't familiar:
- Blue - these are the standard clicky/clacky switches that you're probably used to
- Green - these are like the blues but stiffer; commonly used for the space bar and return in boards predominantly with blues
- Brown - these have a tactile bump, but do not click (in practice, there is a small sound from the bump, and many people bottom out their keys which will still make significant noise). These were developed for Kinesis, who wanted to market a keyboard for office environments that were somewhat quieter.
- Clear - essentially a stiffer brown switch
- Reds - linear actuation and force characteristics through the length of the switch, no tactile or audible feedback
- Black - stiffer reds
There are a few others, but those are the common types of Cherry switches. Browns or blues are best for typing, reds and blacks are best for gaming. Most of the marketing around "gaming" keyboards is contrary to this, but that's mostly due to their belief that the consumer can't identify a mechanical board without the click. The linear switches have a more consistent firing depth and actuation force than the others. The best part about cherry boards is that they're relatively cheap (tens of dollars, not hundreds).
Ignore the rest of this post if you don't want to spend a few hundred dollars on keyboards.
If you're looking for something for typing, I personally favor topre keys. I use a uTron; which has a unique split layout with keys that splay naturally for each hand. More reasonable would be a Topre Realforce (they license their switches to third parties at a higher rate..). If you're looking for something with a small form-factor, the HHKB2 Pro (Happy Hacker Keyboard 2) is pretty nice.
I'm also fond of bucking springs (the really old IBM keyboards). You can still buy the old keyboards on the secondary market. Those are available with and without the 10-key, and variants that are split or include a trackpoint exist but are somewhat rare/collectible. You can also buy new USB boards with buckling springs from Unicomp (http://www.pckeyboard.com/), who currently own the patent. They have the standard layouts available, as well as with a trackpoint knockoff, but they don't have tooling for the split layout. If you want the split layout from the IBM M-15, your only options until the patent runs out are to buy an old one or get a rubber dome gold touch keyboard.
You can also get a keyboard with alps switches, but I'm less familiar with these. Like cherry, they come in a variety of types specified by colors. They're an older design originally in competition with the buckling spring boards.
I mentioned split keyboards above, and if you're looking for a mechanical board for ergonomic reasons, the layout is certainly more important. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of options for split boards. GoldTouch has some boards at a reasonable price, but they're all rubber domes. You can buy an old M-15, but they're rather pricey. I personally use a uTron and like it quite a bit, but it has non-standard key dimensions and layout -- if you use it, you'll spend some time getting used to it and want to avoid other boards. The biggest problem with the uTron is that you'll need to use a courrier service to import it from Japan. If you can get used to the keys being mounted in wells, a Kinesis or Maltron will do quite well, and they're only ~$300.
-
Game-play elements are not covered under copyright, elements of presentation are. For any real answer, you should talk to your lawyer(s) -- any advice given in this thread should be construed as conjecture, not legal advice.
In general, it sounds like you're working on some sort of portfolio piece. Most organizations don't really care about these, but may ask you to stop using their IP. IIRC, organizations are essentially required to send the take down notices or they can lose the ability to enforce ownership of the IP or something..
-
First time I try to do a professional, and informative panel, and all they remember is me having a problem keeping my shirt on.
To be fair..
-
More to the point, you spent less than a day thinking about the second set. It's clearly better than the original because you're taking some of the feedback, but I don't think you've internalized the amount of planning needed to successfully launch a project on kickstarter.
Unless your goal is to take the money and run. Then just pretty everything up a bit more and lower the funding goal.
-
I was doing this in the first place so I could attract people that love classical music as well as people that love ff9.
There's the (a) problem. You don't get the union, you get the intersection.
Final Fantasy 9 was also one of the poorer performing games in the market.
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Final_Fantasy (I am unsure the validity of these numbers, but they look reasonable)
-
That you can't figure out what the problem is likely has a lot to do with your problem.
Most of the people I know with successful kickstarters spent months planning everything out ahead of time.
-
Suite is open as always
.I'm down for the suite. I'll even let you know before I show up this year.
If it could, should OCR start compensating their staff?
in General Discussion
Posted
Because you are engaging in a contract in order to have work performed that would otherwise not be done.
Are you trying to figure out why an organization that is (or is in the process of becoming) a charitable organization would have to jump through hoops to contract work to one of its members? The short answer is that the organization has a responsibility to act in the interests of the organization and its goals, not the interests of its constituent members.