timaeus222

This topic addressed the same request.

Have you read the other posts here saying that the poster says he or she is confused? It's not just me. <--- I already said that. And those people (e.g. PI511, Anorax, etc.) therefore made the same conclusion I made. Are you going to criticize all of us, or just me? Like I said, it's inherently a dilemma, based on how people change their standards on who they call anti- or pro-. You mentioned the double standards inherent in the GG situation, which I quoted below for extra emphasis. I already expounded on the dilemma. I'm not making this up. Take it or leave it. Not worth my time to discuss analytical and synthetic practical propositions or subjective relativism. You can read up on that if you wish, but I am NOT subjectively relative. In fact, I'm much closer to favoring objectivity than subjectivity by a long shot. I already addressed this. You criticize, and you have to do it very carefully. If you don't, you risk getting 'doxxed', etc. The double standards that you continue to assert would create this dilemma. And again (with the purposeful double negative), although we ought to try to fix this, it's too large of a problem to try to fix unless a fairly high number of people actually can and choose to do it. It's so large that, as you said, "the GJP members and their supporters' proven behavior is barely even mentioned", i.e. GG overshadows them in that we might actually be too afraid of them to attack them, yet we don't want to do nothing. We're torn. In despair over this. Honestly, you'd be debating "why aren't things more ideal?? Why don't all people do what they ought??". Well, the world isn't ideal. Not everyone does what they ought. We make large simplifications and assumptions to understand it, in many cases. For example, how hard is it really to distill real life phenomena down to mathematical equations, integrals, etc.? How hard would it be to calculate the Schrodinger equation in full detail for something above Helium (the answer is, time-wastingly hard, and you're going to make at least one mistake)? Why is it most (not all) philosophers accept that humans are superior to animals in intellect and not question much of it? Why is racism still a problem? The list goes on, and I'm not going to ask you to answer the previous question, obviously, for the very reason I'm even talking about it in this light.But anyways, that's only to illustrate the point that we can't approach solving a complex problem such as this one thinking that there's a great possibility we can fix it (No, I'm not saying you said this. I'M saying this; get that straight). We have to approach it with a certain skepticism... a tight filter. After all, there were posts in this topic (which I'm not going to bother to try to find, as it's fairly clear) mentioning something like, "how can you tell what GG articles are telling the truth and what articles are just voicing smartly guised lashes against GG? How do you know which ones to trust?" Again with the hostility, as if I'm trying to waste your time or something. Ignoring. There's nothing wrong with saying etc. I'm not going to bother trying to find the list of people who have had similar things as above happen to them. I don't care if I say etc. or et al. or and so on. It saves time. And I already addressed this above in another way. They're complex moral issues such as this one (see summary) that are most easily solved by changing habits. Changing habits requires changing fundamental beliefs. That takes the cake right there. You realize how hard that is, right? If the so-called supporters were truly seen as supporters, they wouldn't be attacked. There's likely an emotional factor or something that blinds those attackers, because under the supposition that some supporters got attacked, that's just preposterous and ought not to be happening. Any truly rational, sober, sane being would not attack his or her or its community unless out of some uncontrollable state of being.

Yeah, it's the seeming hostility that personally bugs me, but oh well, I can live with it. Fair enough. With the point I previously addressed though, it was concerning a detail that I figured was delicate enough to write it in such a particular way. For example, sometimes there comes a situation where you don't want to emphasize the yay or the nay, but understate the nay to illustrate that hairiness---that delicateness. At least, that kind of language is practical, and is not that uncommonly used, as far as I can tell (a litote). But yes, I'll agree that occasionally I can be confusing. And a minor thing that you could easily clarify yourself, but I mean, the Googled definition of a fact is "a thing that is indisputably the case," so that appears to agree with something being necessarily correct. There are degrees of correctness, to be sure, but I believe that it should be agreeably so, because if someone catches you saying "this is fact", but it's suuuuper far off, well that's just embarrassing. [/rant]

I think it sounds minimalist indeed, but in not so much a way that it is boring or sparse. Actually, I think you did a very good job, arrangement-wise, and the pacing is just about right. Especially for two weeks, this is great.

You could just PM a mod. Topics get lost.

Of course I'm making sense. You're continually making the "distinction" between these "groups", when I already told you that these "distinctions" are made arbitrarily to fit the situation, like you already said with regards to the "journalists". These double negatives I'm incorporating simply reflect the complexity and blurriness of the entire situation, because it literally is quite that confusing as a situation, and it's not just me. It's inherently a dilemma. "Do I want to criticize the people who support GG and risk getting criticized back, or do I not and let the people who are against GG (at that time) continue fighting against those who are supporting GG (at that time)? In what very careful way should I criticize them should I choose to, in order to avoid needlessly brutish consequences? Why is it that I even have to be that careful? How animalistic might these consequences be? Do I want to risk experiencing what Sarkeesian, Quinn, etc. have? Is it worth trying?" (Seriously, quit it with the ad hominem, it doesn't get anyone anywhere. If you're confused, that's fine, but please, don't misconstrue your confusion as someone else's mistake if it happens to not be a mistake. If you're going to say "due to the fact that..." or what have you about facts, it necessarily must be correct. If it's not, well... it's not really a fact, then.)

I'll be able to send you a WIP by the deadline---I just want to do crazy stuff with it that I've never tried before. =P

I don't really "get" the old-film-reel-style intro, because it then goes and leads into a loud, dry, exposed saw wave at 0:55, which sticks out too much. I didn't mind the intro length, but the dryness and volume of that sound just feels jarring, even nearer the 1 minute mark. I also can't really tell what the intro is even of. It's hard to hear. Arguably it sounds like medley-itis, if it's supposed to take (read: plow) you through Mega Man sources, which it seems to be. When things change up at 1:16 and the main sections begin, I think this actually settles into a nice groove, sounding cohesive (yay) and enjoyable. Man though, that soundcloud waveform is so deceptive. It looks like there's something drastically wrong in the EQ in those bumps, but there's nothing overly problematic there... Unfortunately I can't hear the source tune at 1:16 - 2:51, and the intro was medley-ish. That's a huge gap. So... 0:55 - 1:16, 2:51 - 3:22. That's all the Stage Select I hear. That's what, 52 seconds out of 202? There's almost no Stage Select here!

My perspective on this has changed since then. I still like music for complexities, but now I've grown to like harmonies, chord progressions, and melodic contours more so than just the mere layering of complementary elements. Quality stuff that didn't click with me before clicks with me now, because of my new focus towards arrangement. It evokes more intense emotions in me than it used to, which is great. I've also found that what I like is turned completely upside-down whenever I try something new. Here's what I mean. I used to not like dubstep, orchestral, or dance music. But wait! Now, I do? Yes... I DO! Now that I've written dubstep, orchestral, and dance music, I can appreciate all the little details in those types of music and what makes it so great. I've grown more fond of this kind of stuff than I ever would a year ago.

Please don't tell me you DO want us to criticize or condemn those people who harass others under the topic of GamerGate, meaningfully or otherwise. Wouldn't that just be 'throwing ourselves into the fire'? Obviously we shouldn't do nothing out of any fear or however you want to label reluctant or anticipatory minds, but at the same time, we'd appear to be just like them if we do speak out against them, i.e. they would proooooobably see us as what you'd call "anti-GG", which is essentially just a temporary, capricious category that some gamergaters use to label people who they deem to be against them in some way they don't like. It's not a real group or movement that stays consistently-sized, consistently-labeled, or consistently-treated. EX: "I don't like GG." "Yeah? Fine, you're anti-GG now." "Wait, why? It's not like I'm starkly against it in any passionate way. I just don't like it. Can't you just accept my opinion as one?" "No, you're just anti-GG. That's what I'm sticking to, because you said you don't like the movement." You said it yourself about capriciousness (under the assumption that it's true): In other words, labels change, given or received, including "anti-GG". Honestly, I would lump most of the people labeled "pro-GG" and "anti-GG" under one label: those who are missing the point and going on some tangent on feminism and such things other than the original goal: ethics in game journalism. Milo, as insensitive as he was, still called it a "delicate topic". Indeed...

Way to be delicate, Milo

Well, actually it's Sixto's remix, but my provision was that I credited OCR properly, so really, I would be doing this for someone else's track, on one of my videos. =P I sent the email to the company instead of YouTube, and no reply for 2 weeks now. Supposedly, they replied when other people tried, so... we'll see.

No, all I did was google those.

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20798989/FTC-s-Final-Guides-re-Endorsements-and-Testimonials [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2njgyj/important_ftc_update_2_yes_the_ftc_is_going_to/ [3] http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2nlbuu/important_ftc_update_3_yes_we_hit_pay_dirt_gawker/

You gave that example, so I took that example and addressed it. It's not a straw man. It's just going into specifics. If in fact that was irrelevant to your argument, then it would be a straw man, but because you said, "What you are arguing right now is the equivalent of claiming...", it was an apparently practical analogy that was incorporated to discuss the point of yours, that simply naming something that people should already know about is enough of a 'citation'. i.e. addressing it was sensible in bringing up the point that you shouldn't expect people to look into a topic in such a way that makes it of an unreasonable scope or a time-waster. Therefore, the 11000 pages remark was in the intended context, not irrelevant (though I will admit it is a stretch to presume you would want people to do that). It's not as easy as "oh yeah, it's a topic they should care about, so I'll let them read up on it on their own time before they continue their discussion with me." Not my point. You didn't even have to state whether or not you would consider it someone else's job to support your argument, because what I said was independent of a statement such as that one. It was merely advice for the problem where you had been making generalizations and other statements that you would need citations to say with such certainty, but you were sticking to ideas such as "I lived it", "this scenario has happened to people of this kind before", "it was something I experienced", "it's a matter of public record", "I'm pretty sure that...", and so on, i.e.: You simply shouldn't say stuff like the above here and leave them there for us to peruse because they're your assertions. It may seem intuitive, or interesting enough to look up, obligatory for context, or however you want to label it, but some statements such as those are broader or more generalizing than they may seem when you first type them out (not to mention some parts of them are just attacks...). Hence, zircon calling you out on citations, and... well... CHz choosing to cite you. [1] One problem with that. If you don't cite anything other than its name and then say something to the effect of "oh yeah, you can just Google it or look it up somehow. You'll find it.", it's not really citing it. CHz having to cite 7 sources (some of which he knew were probably insufficient as well) simply highlighted the unusual scope of your two claims---and that was only two sentences. What about the other claims... right? [2] If you and I discussed something, and you made a statement that you argue I should believe, and leave it at that, I don't know why I would look up information on it just so I would believe you. Why wouldn't you already have put up a source to back up that claim? This was indeed what I was thinking of earlier, when I said: By doing light (or heavy) research on what backs up your claim, in a way they would be ultimately strengthening your argument (really, they'd be furthering their contextual knowledge so that they better understand your argumentative stance, but... it's similar). In reference to the beginning of your post, apparently, what I said was not a straw man, because you just made it more explicit that it was relevant, even if you say you didn't say it earlier. By not citing sources for what you say, you make your statements remain as statements. If people choose not to cite for you, that's how the statements will remain. Whoops! [3] And you know, that sounds just like an attack. Didn't zircon already talk about this? [/quasi-deja vu] [4] Is it now? It appears to be something that is supposedly seen quite often! But wait! I don't remember the last time I saw that (I really don't, in all seriousness; it sounds quite underselling). Would you cite that, pretty please? (Of course I'm kidding, but you get my point, right?) Anyways, can we get back to GamerGate?

It sounds like it was made in FL Studio (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) with FL Slayer and FL Keys, plus maybe FPC (?). The guitar doesn't sound real, and the drums are weak. Keep trying though, I think you can get better at this.

No, that isn't true. If you said, "Obamacare is ineffective. Go read the Affordable Care Act. You'll see why, I'm telling ya. Everyone I know has said that.", I wouldn't go look. You would have to find the part of the ACA and specify what part you are referring to. One gaping problem: it's over 11000 pages. I already did a 9-page essay on it, got a nice grade on it from my professor, and it still confused the both of us (and I didn't even read the whole thing; I just found sources of people who might have, though they probably didn't). No one's going to sift through it or any other complicated source (or diverse set of sources from the wide-as-hell internet) finding what could possibly support your statements; that's your job, if you want to make your argument stronger. There are some things you can say without proof, like self-explanatory ideas, deductive logic, and things we should know as citizens of our own nations, among other things, but what you had been saying was desperately in need of sources. There's a reason why when putting citations of academic journals in research papers, you're supposed to specify the exact pages. I just don't get why CHz had to jump in and find 7 sources just to support your 2 one-sentence claims, but what a nice guy. A citation is a reference, but no, it's not someone else's obligation to strengthen your argument, it's yours. If you don't want to support your argument, it becomes a mere opinion, and one that doesn't really need to be taken seriously in the midst of other strong, well-supported arguments. If someone calls your source a weak one due to its irrelevance, poor writing, or otherwise, that's fair. It just means your argument would then be either weak due to poor support, or too hard to support due to its unreasonable scope (or other alternatives that I may have missed). Either way, it would be a huge fallacy (burden of proof) to say "your source is weak. If you can't back up your argument, it's wrong." All the other person ought to think is, "your source is weak and not credible, so I currently don't think I should believe your argument. Are there any other sources that you want to go find, or should I just move on and not believe you?" (calling an argument wrong and calling it weak are not the same thing). If someone does indeed ask for citations of your claims, then they're giving you a chance. Take it, to your benefit.

The food hast been eaten

There's a bit too much bass at 1:57 - 2:20 and 2:46 - 3:03 for me. It's just flooding my headphones. I'm using pretty generic Skullcandy earbuds right now, so I would expect some people with $15 earbuds to hear this too. Arrangement-wise, the drumwriting needs a lot more variation. It's just a basic copy-pasted pattern right now, from what I'm hearing. I don't really hear any fills besides in the transitions here and there. Also, Snake Man is really hard to hear at 0:44 - 1:02. Those notes are too short and just sound like blips. The decay should be increased from a higher starting point so that people can tell what notes those are. The melodic writing at 1:36 - 1:53 is also very repetitive. I know that's supposed to be a buildup, but it feels like it's plodding along until the leadin snares come in at 1:47 (although it's hard to tell they were snares until 1:50). Maybe you could make the lead timbre more dynamic with filter modulation or something more creative. So overall, the drums are too repetitive and transitions are not foreshadowing clearly enough for me that a new section is coming up. The lead and arp sound design are also pretty basic, sorry. Also, the source tune should be more prominent. I have to try pretty hard to notice what it's playing sometimes. On the bright side, the drums are produced relatively well, and in general the pacing would be fine for a club context if the drums had more fills. Other than that though, I'm just not able to find something to reel me in. This needs more substance.

What's this about sequenced piano? Rexy, sequencing piano? Wut. I mean, doesn't she play piano? xD Agreed though, the tone was a little too hard IMO. Some things sounded a little distant in the sound field (the drums were pretty upfront, lead and C64-ish arp were pretty far back, etc.), giving kind of a gap depth-wise for me, but mostly things clicked IMO. Yeah, this is great! Awesome writing on the piano and other melodic components, and on the harmonies in general.

Awesome, thanks very much! (This day just keeps getting better!)

Is there another option if I already have Juggernaut (which I do)?

Okay yeah, this is loud, but I think it's just about right for this context. We're RAWKING out, right? Suuuuuper solid stuff.