>... frankly unfunny description ...
Hey, I wrote that description. :(
I'm trying to say this without a high-horse more mature than all of you attitude: everybody needs to calm the hell down.
I think this team argument is really silly. Of course there's no secret "team" that's just waiting to gang up on people or to blindly agree with someone or anything. It's based on a lot more than that.
(I already stated this in #nesvideos earlier).
Phil, still waiting for you to prove you aren't a giant hypocrite by fixing the submission I linked to earlier.
Um, Zurreco already did that, and when you thought Phil had done it, you called for Phil to lose his editing privileges. So what are you really asking for?
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
I'm waiting for the joke to be removed. You know, the thing I originally asked for, since it would be consistent with what he did to the DD2 description.
Phil obviously has no qualms about editing other people's descriptions, or caring what audiences may think about anything, so I don't see what's holding him back. Except for, perhaps, his giant hypocrisy.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
By removing adelikat's joke and also saying that jokes in description is now stupid is moronic.
The jokes are allowed but if jokes are only for your gang to understand then it's clearly not needed.
Also, what's so funny that someone made a typo? I admit that it is a little funny but we are not forced to publicly ridicule that error. Guys like you love when people do errors. After, you are laughing at them. Such sense of humor is weak.
JXQ, and if you think I am overabusing my judge power, which imo just a pretext because you don't have good points, then talk with Bisqwit.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
So what are you really asking for?
I think he wants Phil to either remove the SMB2 joke or accept the joke warning I added to it. An ultimatum of sorts.
I dunno. JXQ is weird and I don't follow his logic sometimes.
Phil wrote:
The jokes are allowed but if jokes are only for your gang to understand then it's clearly not needed.
Anyone who had followed the link would understand the Bimmy part. Anyone who read the submission discussion would find the reference. I don't think this is some joke that only a few people understood/appreciated. Even Bisqwit found it funny. (note: Bisqwit finds a lot of things funny. I only mention him because he isn't in the supposed "JXQ Krew." Bisqwit is a stand up fellow and I salute him.)
That being said, stop trying to fall back on this "you have a posse so there" argument. It isn't a proper rebuttal to what is being said, and the dismissal makes you look ill-prepared to defend your stance.
Very well Phil, I'll fix the movie description myself. After all, I don't think it's funny, and it certainly isn't true, and I won't be breaking any policies that you didn't break, and you've still got your editor permissions, so I think mine are pretty safe.
But thanks for showing your true colors once again.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Even Bisqwit found it funny. (note: Bisqwit finds a lot of things funny. I only mention him because he isn't in the supposed "JXQ Krew." Bisqwit is a stand up fellow and I salute him.)
In fact, no. Bisqwit loves the dialog but didn't care about the Bimmy part since he didn't know it was a joke like I try to defend. I also love the dialog and wonder why JXQ did removed it.
JXQ: Thanx for showing yours too.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Why should JXQ's joke be in the description if you won't quote him properly? That was the reason he reverted your edit in the first place. No Bimmy = no joke. He has the right to withhold his work if it isn't being displayed properly.
Amazingly enough, drawing from future works to make a joke about past works is still OK nowadays. I personally think that JXQ went to too great of lengths to ensure that people understood the Bimmy reference.
Why couldn't there just be a footnote that says "The name Bimmy actually appears in DD3, but it's still funny so HERE WE GO KIDS!"
Phil: so you don't agree with what Fabian said, and you think there is a secret team of people ganging up on you? I think that sounds rather paranoid. (I'm not going to make a list of all the things I disagree with for example Fabian about, to prove that this isn't true.)
When a lot of people disagree with your opinion, you need to start considering the possibility that it is because you are wrong.
JXQ: If you think that description and/or joke in it is bad, then by all means change it, but it would be unconstructive (?) to change it just to make a point.
I actually think the description is fine, but rules are rules, Truncated. No making jokes to non-factual situations, or from factual situations from any other game. My hands are tied.
Phil wrote:
Then why do you always use YOU?
Does not compute.
And please don't attempt cleverness by turning around my "grade-school" quote, because it's a losing proposition.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Zurreco> That's what Phil did, though.
Yes, but I expect more from JXQ.
Phil: Perhaps this irrelevant to the topic, but I'm curious who "those people" in the team are. Am I included for example?
The same principle applies when it is someone else, by the way. If a lot of people disagree with them, it's quite possibly because they are wrong.
Truncated: No, you aren't part of that gang. Though, even if our relation wasn't good before doesn't mean you are part of it.
L4yer: Constructive post.
