MEMBER LOGIN   |   Username: Password:
Twitter: (The Twitter thing is temporarily down due to a Twitter-related bug or something!)
Recent Updates: The New Site is now open! (6 years ago) Which of [these facial express... Vulpin Adventure OST| "Blast to the past!", a review of Plazma Burst 2 by Rating Orb Duogduogduog

Comment History101 in total

This shows all comments by the user Rating Orb Corelis:
Blog: New Site: To Do List  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
6 years ago | (13)
What about the sub-community-things that were suggested in the chat? If I remember correct, no definite conclusion was reached in that conversation... have you later decided against it, or are you perhaps waiting to make a poll or perhaps a blog post about it to see if it is worth doing? Or did you forget about it, since you obviously have quite a lot of other things to do with the new site in your mind?

For the people who don't know what I am referring to, a while ago we talked in the chat about the possibility of making it possible for members to create their own sub-communities (they could be called guilds or clubs or factions or whatever) about something they (and hopefully some other members) are interested in, like a Chess Club, for example. It would have a separate page with a comment section, in which only members of that sub-community could write comments in. Members could possibly also see whenever someone wrote a comment to a sub-community they are in through an system similiar to the current "messages"-thing (due to technical problems, it couldn't be made so that every comment written in the sub-communities comes to guild-members' standard comment inboxes).

A system like this could be quite interesting and make the community more engaging, perhaps increasing traffic a bit and making it slightly more appealing to new members. Additionally, it would allow people to have lighter, shorter discussion about subjects they are interested in but which might not interest a large portion of the site without cluttering the "currently active forum threads" -section (there probably will be one in the new site?) or having to use the chat and hope that someone who is also interested in the subject happens to be there. Sub-communities about single games could also offer people a good place to exchange contact information if the game can be played online and to discuss strategies and stuff. Also, should people want to discuss something that many passionately hate, having a separate corner to discuss it instead of talking about it in the chat might be better for everyone.

The system however has the downsides of it most likely taking some time to make, and since this community isn't that large, it might not see enough use to make it worthwhile to do it. And in addition, this site isn't exactly designed as a social board for people to discuss their favourite shows - it might steal some spotlight from the main purpose of the site. Pseudo also suggested that instead of users making communities, every Interest that you can choose in your profiles could have a comment section for it. This would be easier to implement and would also allow discussing your interests with others in a separate section meant for it. But I personally feel that it wouldn't have quite the same charm as making actual guilds.

Should Pseudo decide to add a system like that, there is still some room for elaboration on how exactly it would work. Should there be a guild leader of sorts who would have to accept new members, or would joining be completely free? Should comments written on sub-communities' comment sections appear in the Community Hub (I assume that there will be a page like that in the new site) or not? Should everyone be allowed to make guilds? Also, it would add nice flavour if there could be ranks in these communities, but that might be overdoing it a bit, especially since they wouldn't really fit in all kinds of communities. It would also be nice if a guild-avatar could be uploaded, which would be displayed in its page.
Blog: Lots of lists!  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
6 years ago | (3)
I wonder if you left Yalortism out intentionally? At one point (several years ago), I think you tried to promote it as an actual religion, as a satire religion like Pastafarianism. Or are you moving away from having Yalortism as anything other than a religon in your games, perhaps?
Poll: In general, how do you feel about the idea of inte...  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
6 years ago | (10)
I don't think that the main problem here is age. To me, it is the children over-estimating themselves, much like people over-estimating themselves in general is rather annoying. It doesn't matter if it is a child who thinks he/she is a lot better than he/she really is. If I were to meet a chess master and started giving him advice/started acting like I was his/her equal, the chess master would have a very good reason to be annoyed with me, even if he/she was several years younger than me.

A nine-year-old is not as mature and intelligent as an 18-year old, barring some special cases. Even an above-average nine-year-old is still and above-average nine-year-old. If one of them believes he/she is, then there is no reason to start flaming that person and being impolite, but one doesn't need to play along with them either. Sure, it might turn out that they are quite mature/intelligent for their age, but I'd say that they are still below people two times older than them, and that it is rather uncommon for them to be much above the average.

Besides, I'd say that most of the ones that think they are on equal terms with people twice their age probably try to show it, one way or another. In my opinion, the ones who go to great lengths to show that they are "mature" are the ones that still have some growing to do. The ones who don't try to bite more than they can chew appear to be the most mature.
Blog: Weekly Update  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
6 years ago | (7)
Hmm. Considering that the purpose of that paragraph is to avoid getting annoying comments by asking only people with qualifications to do so help, I don't quite think it can be considered arrogant. It is only realistic, with wording that some people may find offensive. If Pseudolonewolf would have lorded his own skill over others, saying something like "I am the one here that knows this stuff, so shut up, you muggles.", it would have been arrogant. Explaining the situation rationally with a calm tone of voice can't really be classified as arrogant, in my opinion. I thought it was rather clear that he didn't write the paragraph to show how he knows his stuff and others should stay back and worship him, but rather, to avoid needless frustration for both parties.

As for it being elitist... perhaps, but I think it is justified. After all, you agree with his reasoning too, it would seem. While I can understand how people might get depressed by getting shot down when they want to help, I can't see why someone would be offended by them being explained why their help is not needed. It would be offensive if there was no reasoning, but since it is explained well in the post, I can't understand getting offended by the elitism. Forgive me if this sounds rash, but I think that people should simply accept that they are not qualified and thus their help is not needed/appreciated, and move on. I don't consider this elitism a bad thing, if it can be considered elitism.

You mentioned that being shot down when trying to help is a horrible feeling. I agree completely, but I think that that is the exact thing Pseudolonewolf tried to avoid with that paragraph, in addition to avoiding personal frustration. If no-one writes comments that try to be helpful but unfortunately are not, then Pseudo doesn't need to shoot them down and suffer from the frustration they cause. I think this way, the least amount of frustration is caused to people involved. If he didn't write that paragraph and people tried to help and Pseudo would simply not respond, then Pseudo himself would be the only person to suffer from the comments. But I think that eventually some people would start asking him in PMs and in the chat about if he had read their suggestions, and that would force him to shoot them down in a worse way than by preventing the comments from the very beginning, while having additional stress build up from people pestering him in the chat and in PMs. This way, while some people might get offended, the overall amount of suffering is smaller, I think.

Anyway, I might be biased in Pseudo's favour in this subject due to not being personally offended at all by his wording. I found the comment that started this conversation more offensive than Pseudo's blog post. But to sum up my points, while his wording indeed might offend some people, I disagree with saying that he was arrogant, or that the possible elitism was a bad thing. In addition, this way probably causes the least amount of frustration and depression among the people.
Userpage: Rating Orb E CtG  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
6 years ago | (4)
Since currently the source of most grief for the majority of the members is people trolling in the chat, my first priority would be moderating the chatroom. That includes banning trolls (after giving them a fair chance to explain themselves), enforcing the rules so that non-troll people won't be breaking them (for example, bypassing filters just for fun might make me possibly award a minor amount of banpoints, but I think that just the presence of a moderator would be enough to discourage smaller offences like that), and just hanging around and trying to help new members get to the right path.

Since the majority of the members appear to enjoy going to the chat, keeping it clean would seem like the best way to make Fighunter a more pleasant place to be. Since I don't use the forums much, I wouldn't know what would be the best course of action with them.

About what powers moderators should have... I suppose that giving them the ability to ban people wouldn't result in a disaster, but I might trust people a bit too much with that. Also, silencing in the chat might be useful. Being able to delete comments might also be a good idea; should someone double-post by accident, they could ask a moderator to remove it. Also, spam comments made by trolls or comments with offensive material in them could be removed. Comments worthy of being removed are quite rare, yes, but for example, Rating Orb LiadyC recently wrote a comment in response to a troll than linked to a porn-site. Things like that are not appreciated, and moderators could deal with them. Of course, there's the danger of a moderator abusing that power, like any power, but I think that there are people in this site that wouldn't do so.

Also, for forums, moderators should probably have the standard powers of moving stuff and making stuff sticky (eww) and locking stuff away. Removing or editing forum posts... as long as they wouldn't get too zealous about it and would only remove posts that are spam or include offensive material, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea.

So, in general, it would appear that I would give the moderators quite much power. A recipe for a disaster, yes, but should the moderators prove to be worthy of being them, it could have a strong positive effect on this site. Perhaps.
Blog: Weekly Update  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
6 years ago | (3)
Actually, there is a small difference between the comments, eliminating the possibility that it was posted by accident by hitting the "Back" button.

"the 'pounds' sign (shown [LINK] doesn't make it look alien"
"the 'pounds' sign (shown [LINK] ) doesn't make it look alien"

It might theoretically be possible that it still is an accident, but it is much more likely that he rewrote the comment because of that one little mistake. It would have been better if he hadn't done so, so Rating Orb Geomancia's criticism was justified, but I agree that he could have handled the situation in a bit more friendly manner.
Userpage: Rating Orb Corelis  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
6 years ago | (3)
D'aww, but I like the hat... I even made it myself! I bet you can see that from the quality. Yes, my rough picture with approximately five colours obviously makes Pseudo's piece of art a lot better with its magnificent gloriousness. See, it fits perfectly to the frosty atmosphere of the original artwork!

Oh, and don't worry. I have already managed to bury deep within my heart the hollow feeling of emptiness that comes from having no new comments in two years. Slowly, the void has devoured my emotional capacity from within, until I was no more able to care about it. Now you have totally saved me, though. Congratulations.
Poll: Do you think that the world would be a better plac...  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
7 years ago | (1)
Hmm. If we go on with the stamp analogy, there is another interpretation that is closer to my own definitions. They are not necessarily better, but worth sharing, I guess.

Interviewer: "Do you collect stamps?"
Theist: "Yes, I do collect stamps."
Atheist: "No, I don't collect stamps."
Agnostic: "It is meaningless to state that one either does collect stamps or doesn't; we have no way of knowing if collecting stamps is valuable. It would be illogical to devote oneself to collecting them, but it would also be illogical to avoid collecting them."

Yes, it indeed is only about definitions, in the end. I think that you would label me as an agnostic, perhaps, even though I consider myself an atheist. However, entymology doesn't always bring us to the absolute correct interpretations. Definitions can change, or the word can be a bit off in the first place. If we do a quick Google search for "atheism dictionary", we get the following results:

"Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
"Atheism: A) a disbelief in the existence of deity B) the doctrine that there is no deity"

So both of the interpretations are lumped in Atheism. Both that it is a belief in the fact that there is no god, as you say, and the interpretation I hold, which is that it is simply disbelief. Lack of belief. I guess it is up to the atheist to say which one he/she considers him/herself. Disbelief includes the possibility that a god does indeed exist, but one simply doesn't believe in it, possibly due to the Burden of Proof. One can accept the possibility but still not believe, for example, you can buy a lottery ticket and know perfectly well that you can win, but still belive that you won't win.

The line between agnosticism and atheism is as clear as a line drawn in water. I suppose it is up to oneself to decide where exactly it is.

An afterthought about the Burden of Proof... well, with conflicting claims about, for example, the supernatural, we can conclude that at the very least some (most) of these claims are false. Since we don't know which ones, with the strong possibility that none of them are correct, wouldn't it make more logical sense to assume claims to be false until proven, rather than true until proven false? True, true, this leaves the question of wheather it makes sense to make up one's mind about it at all, when we can't know anything for certain, the agnostic point of view. But well, this situation is rather close to the analogy about lottery. I can know that winning is possible, but not believe in winning. Likewise, I can know that it is theoretically possible for supernatural occourences to happen, but not believe in them when there is no reason to do so. From my point of view, disbelief is the passive, default state of being, not doing something, being still. To believe, to do something, to move, one needs a reason, something has to happen. Kind of like a still ball doesn't move until you push it (yes, the analogy is imperfect, the floor can be slanted, but that is beside the point).
If I suddenly claimed that a ninja elephant from outer space has just sneaked behind you with its incomprehensible space-technology, would you consider the existence of the elephant and the non-existence of the elephant to be on the same logical level?

Oh well. It appears that the "afterthought" is as long as the whole post before it. Oops. Well, anyway, since these definitions are so much based on personal points of view, please don't feel forced to respond. Sure, if you feel like it, I have nothing against it, but I personally dislike being caught in comment-chains that seem to go on and on because I feel like I should respond even though I wouldn't want to (I'm not talking about this current chain, you have been pleasant to talk to, but I once got very weary of a certain conversation but nevertheless it just went on and on without really going anywhere...).
Poll: Do you think that the world would be a better plac...  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
7 years ago | (3)
You are making a rather bold claim about agnosticism being the only logical point of view and atheism being a religion. Atheism is based on lack of belief, which I don't think can be considered a belief, like not-collecting-stamps is not a hobby, while collecting them is.

While it is true that we can't get absolute knowledge about the existence of a god, and we can only point out inconsistencies in religions' interpretations of gods, it is a logical choice to not believe in a god. Atheism works on the concept of Burden of Proof. There being no evidence to point out a god exists, it is perfectly logical to hold the point of view that there is no such a thing as a god. Though, one still should consider it possible for a god to exist, so perhaps "agnostic atheism" is the most logical way to go, so technically agnosticism is the way to go. But it quite depends on how one defines "atheist": does it mean a person who simply doesn't believe in a god, or does it mean a person who insists that a god can't possibly exist. I admit that the last one is illogical, but I still consider the first one simply "atheist" instead of "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic", and the point of view I consider the most logical one. So perhaps we agree about this after all, and it is just a question of definition.

Sorry if I descended into incomprehensible ranting in the end of the comment. That's what happens when you change your point of view a bit in the middle of writing.
Userpage: Rating Orb ! rs111  
Corelis`s Avatar
Rating Orb Corelis 21 Finland PhlegmaticMelancholic 101C 68F
7 years ago | (4)
If you really are intending to leave, then... I salute you.

2000 comments in itself is an achievement. I think it will take a long time before anyone breaks your record, and Pseudo should totally add an achievement in your honour "Rating Orb ! rs111 award", which would be given to a member who has written 2000 comments. Not many would ever get it.

Even though you have been quite annoying rather often, I still find myself saddened to hear that you will leave. You really have made an impression, and Fighunter won't be the same without you. Something will be missing. I never thought I would care about you leaving, but apparently I do...

So, salutations, Rating Orb ! rs111. I didn't think I would ever say this, but it really has been nice having you here. Farewell.

(If you are not actually leaving anywhere, this comment was never written. You are hallucinating, and should see a doctor.)
Page 1 of 11: