DragonFireKai Members
-
Posts
489 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
8Tracks
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by DragonFireKai
-
-
Hey, I just started yesterday, and I've got to say, this has the potential to hook me for a long time. But I have one question:
I've heard you can actually pay for the price of a subscription using in-game cash. One, how much does it cost, and two, where can I make this transaction?
(Also, I'm a Gallente-Gallente-Immigrant, I'm thinking I'll become a pirate, since I have always loved pirates anyways. Fights with my paladin-esque policing tendencies, but hey, I play the good guy in all my other games, eh? Any advice on how to become a pirate and how to be a good one?)
you'll need equipment. It'll be a while before you can start attempting piracy without getting smote by escorts. And don't try doing anything illegal in a system with a security index over .5, you will die. I'd say, come join the OCR Corp, look me up in game, and I'll help you start to get set up.
-
Well, EVE's down for 24 hours. Here's hoping Revelations II doesn't suck. If any of ya'll want to join a corp, just look me up in game, no one gets turned away. Hope ya'll got a good skill training in the interim.
-
It's been a while since I played, but I think that's the tune that gets played when the party faces Lynx over the frozen flame. Spoiler. In the confrontation, it's revealed that the lead character, Kid, is actually Schala from Chrono Cross, and Gil is revealed as Magus. It's also revealed that Viper Manor is built upon the ruins of the ancient kingdom of zeal.
It's either the song played there, or the song played in the ending involving the Giant Mecha, my memories a bit hazy on that.
-
Rather infuriatingly, I got into Firefly exacty two episodes before it was canned.
-
Sure, just contact me in game, and I'll set you up.
-
Well, I reactivated my account. I've got a Caracal right now, two dual 150 mike mike rails, 3 heavy missile launchers. I'm willing to help with anyone who want's to gang up for deep ratting, or mining escort. I've also got a Corp set up, if anyone wants to join.
-
I have drill this weekend, but I'm gonna get back on on Monday. Feel free to look me up, I'm DragonFireKai in game. I've got a lousy cruiser right now.
-
The Third Draft looks a lot better, it's seems more balanced than the previous two. I still don't like the removal aspect of it, but I'm obviously in the minority here. You have absolute power here, Dave, and if you honestly feel that that is the most fair and equitable way to go about it, it's up to you.
-
I might reactivate my account this weekend. I'll let you know tommarow.
-
I find it quite perplexing that you somehow think you're in a better position to estimate the amount of work involved on my end than I am.
Am I wrong in my estimation? Would it be more difficult to remove a song from Last.fm than it would from the mirrors of the OCR?
The gap between a mix being posted and a physical release of some sort is going to be indeterminate. Under your proposed policy, some people might have months to make up their mind, others days, which is ridiculous. No one's chimed in yet, but I don't think the compromise you're suggesting would truly please anyone or change most minds, given the potential implications. The logistics involve so many contingencies that I don't even know how you'd word it, and I can't think of any EULA or site policy I've ever seen that works that way.If you want to set it so that any mix that's been released in a physical form can't be removed from the site, then it does create that inequality. However, inequality exists in everything else, OCR is no different. The fact that people might not get equal time to exercise a right does not mean you should revoke the right entirely. That's akin to banning alcohol because varying lifespans mean people would have unequal amounts of time to exercise the right to drink.
What I was actually trying to put out there was a policy which would allow for removal from all forms of media that are not permanent. Something along the lines of "A remixer may terminate this license by making a request during a one week annual period, when such a request is recieved, the site will remove the Work from the site proper and any other sites hosting the Work. However, the Work will not be removed from any physical media already released, as the site does not have the power to fufill such a request."
Most of the site policies I've checked from sites that host music allow the artist to remove their work with either a timed notice, or no notice at all. From what I've seen, you're establishing new ground here by trying to treat the site as a physical release. As such, any attempt at compromise will partially be in that new ground.
When a compromise pleases no one fully, it's probably a decent and equitable notion... when it pleases no one at all, however (besides, I'm assuming, yourself), I'd say it's rather not.I'm not the only person who brought up this idea, I simply fleshed it out a bit more.
I was thinking that perhaps, in the case of remix removals, there could be a period of the year in which all remix removals requested/in queue are removed from torrents and the site. That way the staff will only have to mess around the torrents ad the database once a year, sort of a lockdown.This could be a good compromise. If you want your remixes removed, you must request it during a specific period of time. A "spring cleaning" of sorts.By the way, I never got an answer as to weather or not the Grandfather clause we discussed was added to the third draft.
-
- Regarding proposals to intermittently do some sort of Spring cleaning, have periodic lockdowns, etc., during which mixers could opt to have specific songs removed or not, I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't make sense to me.
- It really doesn't offer people looking for complete freedom to remove their mixes whenever they want what they appear to be seeking.
Compromise is the essence of diplomacy. As I said, I would like for the right to exit to be unabridged, but you have made a good argument that the logistics are against such unrestriced rights. We are not playing a game of absolutes here, despite what some of the language being thrown around may seem. A compromise can be found that will leave each party equally satisfied, or dissatisfied, depending on your outlook on life.
No, it doesn't. It'd be nice if you had that amount of time, but the status quo is that the mix is posted, the onus of initiating change falls on the person who wants the status quo to change. In this event, it would be the person who wants his mix removed. As I said earlier, you would merely need to throw up an announcement on the forum, then wait for anyone who is dissatisfied to contact you.It means we'd have to poll every last mixer that submitted a piece in the interim period between one lockdown and the next.
I think Last.fm is a bad example. I just checked the Terms and Conditions of submitting work to Last.fm, similar to soundclick...Essentially, once physically published, the existing removal policy would hold true. Since we intend to publish on last.fm and elsewhere, NOT JUST physical media, on a continuous basis, the number of "removal windows" is unforeseeable and potentially quite large, with concurrent, tangential timelines for different avenues. This is one of those proposals that I imagine sounds reasonable to those proposing it as a compromise, but... think through the logistics. Please.
Taking Work off of Last.fm isn't very difficult, in fact, I think that it would be more time consuming to take the song off all the mirrors here at OCR than to axe it at Last.fm.You or Last.fm can terminate this agreement at any time (upon providing no less than 30 days notice except where you breach this agreement, in which case Last.fm can terminate it immediately). - Regarding proposals to intermittently do some sort of Spring cleaning, have periodic lockdowns, etc., during which mixers could opt to have specific songs removed or not, I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't make sense to me.
-
There have been a very low number of removal requests to date, and all of them have been for personal reasons with little thought given to the implications. This suggests to me not that the amount of work involved with removals is minimal, as you would infer, but rather that the number of people who want to remove their mixes is relatively small, and doesn't need to be "catered" to, seeing as the rationale for removal to date has been 100% in the aforementioned categories, none of which we've indicated are persuasive.
To me, it's the fact that there are not likely to be many requests in the future that makes it seem a little overbearing, IMO. The people who are sensitive enough to wind up wanting to leave the site are the overwhelming minority here. Creating legislature that affects such a small minority requires justification in my mind. It's not a matter of catering to these people, as you seem to think, but not oppressing them. To be honest, I hate it when a mix is removed, for any reason. I didn't realize that the site even did it, until my hard drive crashed and the site had lockdown 2 in the process. I found it extremely irritating at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I understood why it happened. That was actually the impetus of me diving into this discussion. But back to the topic, I don't think the fact that the law affects only the minority, and ergo they can be dismissed outright, should be the way people come up with rules.
If there were tons of removals, I'd say it was a huge workload. Since there've been a relatively low number, I'll instead say that it represents a niche request that has to date been motivated almost entirely by purely personal agendas. Either way, looking at the track record of removal requests to date is a non-starter for me. The bottom line is that a SINGLE request, if timed right, could pose a major burden, depending on what else we're doing and what we've published/promoted to date.Which is why we've suggested a sort of spring cleaning period as a compromise that is acceptable to us. Schedule it at your discretion, for the time that would cause the least amount of conflict with you and the site, give a one week period in which such requests could be filed, then knock them all out at once. That would eliminate the problems of them using malicious timing to disrupt your plans, because you would dictate the timing of the request.
Looking at the past is the wrong way of addressing this policy... you wanted to, so I humored you a bit and pointed out how the low number of requests can be used as an argument on either side, but frankly, we're enacting a policy because we want to move the site forward, introduce new avenues of distribution, promotion, etc., and basing a forward-looking policy on... the past... seems highly counterintuitive. Granted, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it, but in this instance, the precedent isn't in any way compelling, conclusive, or applicable.I dissagree, looking to the past, at previous precident, at how the community reacts to certain situations, is key to putting together any sort of rule set that affects the site and the community.
At this point, I simply know that we want to. I don't know about specific timetables, release frequency, etc. - all of those things are highly contextual. Trying to build a policy that took into account the phase of the moon, the amount of funds we had to work with, the price of tea in China, and how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop doesn't really sound effective: release intervals for things like that should be something we shouldn't have to worry about, since we're expending site funds to promote the music of those who submit. A policy that created arbitrary connections between that type of promotion and mix removals would tie our hands to do the types of things that, in general, are what motivated trying to introduce said policy at this point in time in the first place.I'm not asking for an ironclad agenda of events, I understand that the nature of the marketing game requires some flexibility. If you accepted the compromise I mentioned above, you needn't implement a hard annual timeline, simply fire off an announcement "Cleaning Phase Begins Today Ends On X Date Seven Days Later" during the time when you don't have a physical print running, or something to that effect.
-
Hello, New Members, Old Members who are inexplicably reading this, and The Staff. Welcome to OCRemix.org, AKA OCR. I'm sure you'll love it here. But those of you who only spend time in community discussion are missing out on the full breadth of the OCR experience. Foremost among the other things you can do at this site is our Politics, Philosophy, and Religion board, found here.
All manner of discussion on a multitude of topics are carried on in this place, and we welcome more. Do you hate George Bush? Tell us why! Do you support the War? Tell us why! Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, Christian or Muslim or Hindu, Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, make your voice heard at PPR!
-
This thread is suffering from a severe lack of Sam and Max Hit the Road.
-
Why does the frequency of removal requests to date have anything to do with this policy whatsoever?
Explain that to me and we'll discuss that topic.
Frequency determines the amount of work the staff has to do to handle said requests. The only counterpoint that you've brought up that wasn't entirely dismissive on a personal basis was that fufilling such requests would be an inordinate amount of work, and it would be unfair to place that burden on the site staff. Overall, since the inception of the site, there have been 30 Remixes removed due to the Mixer requesting it. There have been 138 mixes removed by the site during lockdowns, or emergency recalls. The site has been functioning for roughly 80 months. This comes out to one removal by request every 10 weeks. That doesn't seem too bad. Now, if you were recieving independent removal requests every week or so, then it lends credence to your inordinate work rebuttall. But so far, to this point, Removal by Request has been a fairly rare occurance, and it seems to me, that the workload these requests cause is miniscule compared to the workload created by managing the site and community on a day to day basis. It seems to us that a removal request is a fairly rare occurence, and the site's stance on it seems to be a little harsh. Correct us if we're wrong.
-
The only morally correct way to decide who gets Ultros will be a fight to the death.
-
One more question, in the third draft, has that Grandfather clause we discussed been included?
-
I'm glad you made this DragonFire.
The frustration filled draft forum didn't seem a suitable place to post the quick pic I whipped up.
Yeah, I could see that going over well. "This is why I think the draft you're working on is complete garbage! BTW here's a nice birthday sketch!" Just a little akward there.
-
Is it even possible to dodge it?
-
We save the noob bashing for OffTop and PPR.
-
If you like using photoshop, my suggestion is getting in touch with Bummerdude and Doulifée. There's a nice sig shop that they run.
-
Naw, I'm impressed, alot of new posters take a while before they even format themselves a sig.
-
My problem with pop music is that everything sounds the same these days. Aside from some unique sounds from Justin Timberlake's latest release, I'm not feeling any vibe from other people. It's the same case with R&B.
Man...the old days of George Michael and Micheal Jackson were the best.
Eh, you just have to wait until the 50 foot tall Robo-Michael gets let loose in Nevada. You think I'm joking, don't you?
-
Mine is the only boss that scared the piss outta me. Whether or not he classifies as a boss is irrelevant.
I remember that damn yeti!
Oh. Em. Gee (OCR featured on Encyclopedia Dramatica)
in General Discussion
Posted
Nice, you earned it!