timaeus222

Joe's contributions really made the track here. Totally evokes that feel of a caravan!

When an imminent arrest was to be made based on a witnessed shooting of an unarmed victim, Zimmerman claimed that his actions were for self defense (i.e. he claims that he had no intention to kill for the sake of killing). At the same time, the police could not find evidence from an interrogation to counteract that claim; it just so happens that by Florida's Stand Your Ground law, the police weren't allowed to make the arrest. About a year later, he even goes so far as to say that he was an "innocent American being prosecuted by the federal government." The attempted conviction involved an arrest based on Zimmerman's actions (the shooting), rather than his moral character (his claim of self-defense in some way justifying his actions). The Stand Your Ground law became a technicality that fell in line with his claims (not that I'm saying he cited that law), so by a technicality, the acquittal correlated with his claim of self defense. Their instinct for the arrest was based on the action. Presuming that he, with certainty, actually shot the victim, his claim of justifying actions that, gone unqualified, would have been illegal (i.e. an attempt at establishing his good-faith moral character) is opposed to how his observable actions were perceived at the time of the arrest. It's just an example of a probably guilty person acquitted, rather than an innocent person convicted. At its core, it returns to the perceived actions unfortunately overshadowing his moral character, which is the root of what I've been saying.

On the contrary; it is the "excessively flawed justice system" 's specific failure with regards to the lack of "presumption of innocence" that is what I was drawing from for the argument. So, the worse the handling of the "presumption of innocence" is perceived to be, the more it supports my argument here. It is the unjust result of "observable actions overshadowing moral character" that I'm saying is a provocative example intended to prompt "more critical analysis of a person's moral character in conjunction with his or her actions before making the claim that his or her actions 'sum up' who the person 'is,'" so that we avoid doing such things.

>_> Actually, I just do that to emphasize the important premises, assumptions, etc., in a sea of information*. * Yeah, metaphor in a casual response! [/awkward enthusiasm]

I don't know if you have a local Barnes & Nobles, but the Nook tablet is specialized just for e-books. Might want to check that out if you get the chance. Personally I do use Kindle though---as an iPad app.

What about mens rea (criminal intent)? As an example, why would that be defined in the U.S. constitution if excusing poor behavior is somehow "the only reason" for arguing that "moral character is something that can exist outside of people's observable action"? We're getting on a tangent here, but the point is, whether or not you personally care about a person's train of thought, the U.S. criminal justice system cares (or... it tries to, to be more accurate), and that's pretty unfortunately significant. Sure, practically speaking, this "excuse" allows some people to justify their own actions in how they "perceive the effects of [their own] actions," potentially in contrast to "what others perceive," but that is bound to happen anyway. We agree that others' perception of us, such as an officer's perception of a particular so-called criminal, more greatly affects us than what we argue to justify our actions. Where we disagree is how we should treat the offender. As a more specific example, many innocent people who get arrested are going to believe that simply because they know they're innocent of a given crime, that they can't be convicted for something. But in fact, it's still quite possible (see the first paragraph here). Maybe someone mentions your name when he/she gets accused of a gang rape, because an officer interrogates him/her and assumes that he/she had accomplice(s), one of them being you (perception)... again, even if you had nothing to do with it (reality). If and when it happens, your life is in the toilet while you're being taken in. If you're in college, you just acquired a semester and a half of absences waiting for a verdict (because it's about 6 months between the initial arrest and your trial). If you own a car, a home... you've lost it. And that is one result of observable actions overshadowing moral character. In other words, THAT is a major issue in the U.S. criminal justice system. That is an example, I would say, of why I think we should prompt more critical analysis of a person's moral character in conjunction with his or her actions before making the claim that his or her actions "sum up" who the person "is". Now to make this actually relevant, Neblix was saying that "policing sexist actions to try and fix the sexist society (what Anita is trying to do when she judgmentally casts gamers as sick people because they enjoy this stuff) will not work, but that treating the sexist society at the root of its sexism will in fact work." What I said above essentially pairs up with this statement that addressing the so-called "sexist actions" alone isn't good enough, in that I am saying that the person's action does not "sum up" who the person "is"; hence, it is not good enough to go that direction.

Except I didn't. To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that the relevant definition of thinking is the part where I said, "[ . . . some form of deliberation + outside influence] -> decision". What I implied (or at least intended to imply) was that deliberation is a more focused area of thinking, as I had broken down the role of deliberation in being the common process for coming to a decision, sometimes affected by outside influences, and thus converging upon a course of action. Never did I outright say that the "the way people's actions make other people feel doesn't matter," nor that "the negative effects of these things don't actually matter," i.e. that the results of our actions don't matter (it could be extrapolated, but it would be a straw man). In fact, I said this in an earlier post on page 100: The degree of separation I'm emphasizing between what you "are" and what you "do" is meant to prompt further analysis on perception vs. reality. Simply because you perceived a person's observable action as being wrong in some way (perception) doesn't mean you've accounted for how they actually came to their decision (reality) to perform such an action. i.e. although a person's observable action is easy to see (perception), probing into their minds to substantiate the rationale of their thinking (reality) is much more difficult (otherwise police investigations would be pretty easy, no?). Essentially what I'm saying is that actions DO unfortunately matter in the end (the most, even, because they are observable), but it would be worse to compound that and say that their action has essentially 'summed up' who they "are" as a person. If we only focused on the person's action, what's to say they weren't coerced in private, for instance? It doesn't fully account for who the person "is," i.e. their moral character.

Yeah. :/ Still excited though!

I heard this is coming out next February or so.

Deliberation is essentially a self-constructed thought process one makes within a society. Or, in your words, a "magical internal mechanism." From a philosophical standpoint, [person + some form of deliberation + outside influence] -> decision -> action. Action resulting from improper/unrefined deliberation does not fully account for action resulting from refined deliberation, because deliberation affects the decision made and thus the action made. For instance, a truly sexist person (whom no one else confronts) would likely continue to believe in being sexist, if his/her deliberations tend to consider little about society's reaction to sexism and any negative effects that arise as a result of such actions by said sexist person. Such deliberations, I would consider unrefined. So, addressing the process of deliberation is a pretty good place to start to affect the decision made and thus the action performed. (What may conflict with this approach though, are outside influences like media.)

Equating "actions" as being what a person "is" removes his/her deliberation from the equation. Here's what I mean... The actions don't necessarily define (determine the prominent qualities of) the person; they are simply observable expressions by the person. The person, more often than not, deliberates (or ought to), and thus tries to determine his/her courses of action. Society perceives a person's actions as who they are; that happens, but it may be specious and/or rash. We should always consider perception vs. reality when speaking to how a group of people "is" as compared to what they "do", because what a person does is not inherently linked to careful deliberation. Any action that comes about from "improper"* thinking does not account for any action that would come about from more refined thinking. Wouldn't you say that if we refined the thinking of a sexist person, he/she would be less inclined to act in a sexist manner? I think what Neblix wants to do is re-examine any "improper" thinking within society, rather than "waste . . . time and human resources" to address the so-called reinforcement from media (i.e. games) on such thinking, because media is born from a society. Honestly, I think the former is more difficult, though I agree that ideally it should help. * To be more specific, I just mean "acquired from problematic contemplation."

I can always edit the post to replace the track with "Release the Kraken". EDIT: OK, I've checked that out again, and I would say: - Try making the leads have more synergy with the chordal instruments (to me it kinda seems like the lead is just pasted on top of a chord progression that wasn't written for it, such as at 0:46 - 1:02; the piano at 1:02 - 1:16 matches harmonically, for example). - Could be quieter overall (maybe about 2~4 dB) - The piano could have more variation in tonal hardness, if possible But yeah, I think that would be more fun to have on the album!

No worries, Yoshi. Okay, so, unforeseen circumstances gave me some time to suggest a list of strong candidates for a proposed OCRI package (which, remember, has lower standards than mixpost standards)! After listening back over the mixes, and based on what I believe would fall under that category, I've made an unorganized and then organized list below (no hate towards anyone whom I didn't pick out of the 92 tracks!). In parentheses are reservations or concerns I have about production and/or arrangement. PRELIMINARY UNORGANIZED LIST (IN THE GENERAL ORDER OF THE ROUNDS) - 'Rolling' - evktalo feat. Jorito & Tuberz McGee (check sibilance of vocals, consider reduction of washiness on the reverb for the rhythm guitars, and maybe lower the overall volume a bit; also, 2:17 sounds disjointed from what came before, IMO, so try figuring out a transition, including changing some notes around) - 'Electric Moves & Cephalod Grooves' - SuperiorX (check the volume and upper treble EQ of the lead at 0:53 - 1:19 and other spots where it shows up; also, maybe think of an ending, but not crucial) - 'Firefly' - Sir_NutS feat. Usa (would be nice if the volume was simply a few dB quieter overall, and could use a bit more clarity in the vocoded vocals though not crucial) - 'Bounce Too High' - Ivan Hakštok (check for slight boominess from the bass) - 'MMMDop' - WillRock - 'Beetle Dopplerganger' - jnWake (consider a bit more of an assertive lead at 1:12 - 1:32, and at 1:43 - 2:06; I might be able to give a hand on this, btw ; also, try putting more variation in the rhythm guitar patterns) - 'Caffeine Shoveling Hunter Turtloids' - Ghetto Lee Lewis feat. Jason Covenant & WillRock (try lowering the upper treble on the lead at 0:15 - 0:44; also, consider reducing the amount of reverb on the vocals and padding, as well as lowering the overall volume a touch) - 'X's Demise' - pu_freak - 'Sins of the Syndicate' - Flexstyle feat. bLiNd (could be quieter by about 3~5 dB, but that's about it) TBD - 'Vector Point Engineering Sigma Fortress' - Jason Covenant feat. Ghetto Lee Lewis & WillRock (perhaps look into the vocal clarity, specifically the sibilant and fricative syllables. Also, extend the tail of the ending!) - 'Mind Flip' - timaeus222 (already revised for more variation on the second half and more polished mixing! ) - 'Requiem for a Reploid' - Usa (consider looking back over the MIDI CC automations, and lowering the overall volume by about 3~5 dB) - 'Red Shifting Drift' - Gario (maybe try lowering the reverb a little) - 'Flight of the Peacock' - timaeus222 - 'Gate's Secret Dream Lab' - Usa - 'Beautiful Bloody Bats' - fxsnowy (perhaps consider asking for a live saxophone player, because it's pretty hard to humanize a sax) PRELIMINARY ORGANIZED LIST (BY PERCEIVED ENERGY LEVEL OR ATMOSPHERE) Aggressive/Otherwise High-Energy: - 'Rolling' - evktalo feat. Jorito & Tuberz McGee - 'Firefly' - Sir_NutS feat. Usa - 'MMMDop' - WillRock - 'Vector Point Engineering Sigma Fortress' - Jason Covenant feat. Ghetto Lee Lewis & WillRock - 'Sins of the Syndicate' - Flexstyle feat. bLiNd TBD - 'Caffeine Shoveling Hunter Turtloids' - Ghetto Lee Lewis feat. Jason Covenant & WillRock - 'Mind Flip' - timaeus222 Middle-Ground/Groove-laden: - 'Electric Moves & Cephalod Grooves' - SuperiorX - 'Bounce Too High' - Ivan Hakštok - 'Beetle Dopplerganger' - jnWake - 'Red Shifting Drift' - Gario Mellow/Chill-ish: - 'X's Demise' - pu_freak - 'Requiem for a Reploid' - Usa - 'Flight of the Peacock' - timaeus222 - 'Gate's Secret Dream Lab' - Usa - 'Beautiful Bloody Bats' - fxsnowy PRELIMINARY ORGANIZED LIST (AS PROPOSED TRACKLIST) Disc 1 (0:33:39) 1. MMMDop - WillRock 2. Electric Moves & Cephalopod Grooves - SuperiorX 3. Beetle Dopplerganger - jnWake 4. Rolling - evktalo feat. Jorito & Tuberz McGee 5. Caffeine Shoveling Hunter Turtloids - Ghetto Lee Lewis feat. Jason Covenant & WillRock 6. Beautiful Bloody Bats - fxsnowy 7. Requiem for a Reploid - Usa 8. X's Demise - pu_freak Disc 2 (0:28:54) 1. Bounce Too High - Ivan Hakštok 2. Flight of the Peacock - timaeus222 3. TBD 4. Firefly - Sir_NutS feat. Usa 5. Red Shifting Drift - Gario 6. Mind Flip~ - timaeus222 7. Vector Point Engineering Sigma Fortress - Jason Covenant feat. Ghetto Lee Lewis & WillRock 8. Gate's Secret Dream Lab - Usa ENERGETICS STATISTICS Overall Selection ~ 7 High-Energy 4 Middle-Ground 5 Mellow Disc 1 ~ 3 High-Energy 2 Middle-Ground 3 Mellow Disc 2 ~ 4 High-Energy 2 Middle-Ground 2 Mellow PRELIMINARY RESULTANT PROPOSED ARTIST LIST bLiNd? evktalo Flexstyle TBD fxsnowy Gario Ghetto Lee Lewis Jason Covenant jnWake Jorito pu_freak Sir_NutS SuperiorX timaeus222 Tuberz McGee Usa WillRock

Something more like 10~15 tracks that are likely to get on OCR would be much more manageable. If I have time later I might suggest a more specific selection. (Also, check the spellings! It's "Flight of the Peacock", not "The Flight of Peacock"; my name has no space and is not capitalized; Garpocalypse is spelled with a y; Usa is not spelled with an e; etc.)

Well, it has quite a bit of midrange near 300 Hz. Try lowering the resonance on the pad a bit, and then raising the cutoff until you hear enough midrange.

Woo, great stuff! I liked the rhythmic personalizations; the double-time section really helped reduce the repetition, and who doesn't like the rackety-tat-tat of a Pokemon card on bicycle wheels?

Rad shredding!

The former highlights the lack of requiring cause/effect evidence for the social sciences to strengthen the argument (because asking for such evidence would be fallacious), while the latter strongly suggests correlation evidence for the social sciences to strengthen the argument (asking for such evidence would not be fallacious) AND to limit the certitude with which the argument is made.

I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone here is saying that Anita et al. need scientific/physical evidence to prove causations in the social sciences---just that they should cite relevant studies to show that they aren't making hand-waving arguments and passing them off with certitude with regards to direct causal lines.

Well, if you're going to give a consistent judgment whenever the production is compromised AND is more significantly problematic than the arrangement, I just don't see why you would download some mixes but not others. I can see why sometimes it can be negligible, but that's what I would do, at least.

If both are available, they should always download the file for the original fidelity.

So, basically, you're saying that no matter what their rhetoric... if they don't follow through and support banning something, you're OK with that? I get that many people are on the side of "it's the end result that 'matters,'"[*] but why dismiss the rhetoric? Why is it "[n]ot worth arguing with" the people who are "not a threat"? I think WE should care, because so many people out there don't. Did you know that one confession to a crime (even a FALSE one due to aggressive interrogation) is enough to convict, despite zero physical evidence? Isn't that upsetting and alarming? Granted, physical evidence is not quite the same as the rhetoric and cited sources used in proposing correlations between art and its so-called effect on humans, and getting convicted is more serious than making conclusions about impacts on gaming, but it's a pretty similar issue---why make claims with such certitude with little or no proper justification, and why accept such claims? Why agree with the many people who care more about the results than the rationale or rhetoric to get there? Yes, the conclusion "'matters' more than anything" in the end, but I find it more of an unfortunate, sad truth than something we should accept. [*] For instance, 20~30 years ago, the government paid private convicted-drug-dealer informants to snitch on other people as per "Mandatory Minimum Sentences," regardless of whether or not the informants are lying. I saw a documentary on this the other day, and it's just disturbing that the government cares more about the conviction rate than the credibility of the snitches used to get some of these convictions.

Don't forget he clarified with: He made the connection already. Depicting people in art IS an analogue of depicting women in video games. i.e. it's a relevant analogy.

Wow, I'm loving the sinister atmosphere here. The metallic, digital, granular sounds are really cool too. I thought this did have solid pacing. Might be difficult to "get" for the non-detail-oriented person, but the effort shows in getting this to sound the way it does. 3:38 - 4:20 was a highlight for me. This is definitely worth repeat listens to understand what's going on. Check it out already!