James

[font=franklin gothic medium]The thing is, people can introduce themselves within regular discussion threads. This is a message I've been trying to convey - not having an introduction forum doesn't mean that people can't introduce themselves. Say you're in a topic about favourite pets or something. You can open your post with a "I just joined and want to say hello to everyone" type of message. That's totally fine, because you're introducing yourself [i]and[/i] contributing to a discussion. I have no problem with that. That approach suits the kind of atmosphere that we're trying to create here. So, not having an introduction forum shouldn't suggest that people can't have introductions - it just means that introductions should be done within a discussion thread, rather than having its own thread. Works the same way and achieves the same effect, but it dramatically cuts down on the spam.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think the biggest thing I notice on the web is that people tend to feel that they can truly be who they are. For example, a lot of people here may not want to share their love of anime in a typical school situation...but online they can find people who share their interest and there isn't a problem. So, your success or your popularity is no longer about what you wear or how you look or anything like that. Online, it's much more about your ideas and behavior, I think. In some ways that's better, I guess. It could be said that people are responding to the "real you". But that itself is dependent on interpretation to some degree. For instance, I know that a lot of things (like tone of voice) can't be adequately expressed online. As a result, people can easily be misinterpreted or something can be taken in a way that it wasn't intended. I'm sure that I've made ridiculous comments over the years that people have taken seriously and I've been unaware that they required further explanation (or perhaps something as simple as a wink). But it happens...and it really can't be avoided all the time. In terms of running sites and stuff, I don't think it's ever an entirely positive thing where popularity is involved. Honestly, if people like you or become your friend because you run a site, then that kind of speaks for itself. At the same time, the bigger the audience is, the more direct criticism and negative comments you get...so yeah, it's absolutely a very mixed bag. But in terms of a general popularity it's probably just the same as liking someone for making music or writing a book - they're generally popular but that doesn't mean everyone is their friend.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think it's very important not to confuse drug use and drug abuse, here. But having said that, I would never advocate suggesting drugs as a solution to anything. And I'd certainly never advocate anyone giving them or recommending them to children. Anyway, it's natural to occasionally feel a bit hopeless. It happens to all of us. And I think we all have different ways of dealing with it. For me, it really depends...sometimes one thing will work and sometimes it won't. Exercise is a great way to overcome feelings of indifference, because you tend to feel great afterwards (and I find that the process clears my mind quite a lot). So, I often find that simply getting out of home and seeing friends, or even just going for a walk...these things help a great deal. Sometimes it's just important to break whatever pattern you're in, if even for a moment, to clear your mind and have a fresh focus on things. Other than that, I don't know. Different things work for different people. Sometimes it's great to just relax and watch a movie, or listen to some music or do something else that relaxes you. And at other times the best thing you can do is actually have some activity and be around people. In any case, these are some of the things I do if I'm feeling that way.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, we will have a link on the navigation menu soon, not to worry. Unfortunately the default vB settings can be pretty awkward.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I think technically this is very borderline. According to our policy on plagiarism, this may require further changes/editing to make it sufficiently different from the source material. However, this largely does come down to opinion - one Moderator may feel it's enough, another may feel that it's not enough. Unfortunately there's no way around that. Are you aware that your account has been frozen, or was it just a warning?[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It could either be a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion - one Moderator may have felt that the image wasn't edited enough from its original state. Or they may have received a complaint. If the wallpaper is gone I'm unable to see it, but perhaps you could upload it here and let me have a look at it.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think it might be a misinterpretation to say that it "doesn't have enough graphic effects done to it". It's not about how detailed the image is, it's about plagiarism (ie: just cutting and pasting something). It can be a fine line, but I think generally the policy is that if one is going to take an existing image (like official art), it has to be reasonably edited or something.[/font]

[QUOTE=Dagger] Moreover, as James mentioned (and now I'm speaking in a broader sense), it's not like Iran has been an uber-repressed society for thousands and thousands of years. I just don't see how "Oh, it's their culture" works as an adequate excuse for either them doing it or for us not condemning it... one could just as easily categorize the situation in North Korea (closed country, brainwashing, laws & policies which cause countless people to suffer in countless ways) as some kind of cultural thing that we simply have to tolerate because we're oh-so-civilized and enlightened. ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Absolutely and I think the key thing related to all of this is "choice". As I mentioned with Iran, pre-revolution, it was not mandatory/compulsory to wear the head-scarf. And many women (perhaps even the majority) did not. But some did, because they chose to as part of their religious observances. After the revolution, new laws were drafted, which made the head-scarf compulsory for all women. Those who have ever seen any documentaries on the history of Iran may recall street protests in Tehran, where women deliberately protested and walked the streets without the scarf. It's important to make a distinction, by saying that these women were not actually protesting against the wearing of the scarf. They were protesting about the lack of choice related to it - they were protesting that they were being [b]forced[/b] to wear it. That's the key point and it relates to so many things in countries like Iran and elsewhere. When the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, I don't think any reasonable person was saying "oh it's just part of their culture for women to be beaten around the legs in the street for laughing". It's not as though it had been that way forever and it's not as though women had somehow approved of that treatment. They were [i]forced[/i] into that way of life - and only somewhat recently, too. So, it's important to be clear in saying that this isn't about trampling on people's heritage or cultural values. It's about ensuring that people have the right to [b]choose[/b] how to live their lives. In quite a few places within the Middle East, laws and society were actually more leniant before various takeovers and such. So it isn't accurate for anyone to suggest that this is just their "culture" and that nobody has any right to comment on it.[/font]

[quote name='Rasetsutaisho']i think marylin manson would punch you in the face... honestly laws are only restrictive when you go against them... i belive that country is trying to preserve a more pure and simple way of life... if you know anything about history you'd know that just about every civilization falls apart right after or when their about to reach their peak... just look at the roman empire... and look how much it mirrors our own! [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]What has Marilyn Manson got to do with it? lol. Anyway, your argument here is ridiculous and shows that you [i]don't[/i] know much about history. A more "pure" and "simple" way of life means executing people who are only being themselves? Yeah, that's pure and simple alright. Why don't we go and kill all of the other minorities while we're at it? Or how about we kill people who marry someone that we don't like? How far do you take the process of "pure and simple"?[/font] [quote] i know this is off topic but... i think their really wise in doing things like keeping women covered up all the time! i mean take an honest look back in your life... how many of your problems had something to do with some girl that you liked? and did you even really like her? ... that whole problem wouldnt have even happend if the girl was covered![/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That doesn't even make any sense and I'm assuming that you are joking.[/font] [quote] im not saying we need to switch to that what im saying is its sickning to see some one be so double minded... you accept gays? but not ppl with a different way of life?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]So you're equating homosexuals with what? Killing people who you disagree with? No, tolerance and equality aren't so selective. What's sickening is that you're unable to make the distinction here. You can't on the one hand tell me that I should respect people's different social system and simultaneously tell me that this means I should also respect the murder of innocent people for no reason other than raw biggotry.[/font] [quote] besides that its not like they live anywhere near us... we dont have to worry about it that much[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Sure, why worry about people who are so far away? I mean, I'm probably never going to go to Iran or meet any of the people who are directly impacted by this, so why bother? Thank god there [i]are[/i] people who bother worrying about those who are out of direct sight. You can't tell me to be open-minded when you make a decidedly close-minded statement like that. lol And please, do not double post. It's against the rules. There's a link on the left navigation menu for that, I do recommend that you read it.[/font] [quote]And as stated above, anyone with decent brainpower might take slight notice to the execution of 4,000 homosexuals in their country. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I wouldn't be so sure. Don't forget the thousands of other people who are killed each year in Iran, for a myriad of other "crimes". I mean, I think they probably did know it was illegal, I'm just pointing out that they didn't [i]necessarily[/i] know and that it might be possible not to be aware of it, especially at a young age. While we're on this subject, I think it is [i]slightly[/i] incorrect to simply say that Iran and some other countries "aren't as far along as we are", in a social sense. Do not forget that Iran wasn't always as restrictive as it is now. Before the revolution, Iran was significantly more open and socially developed - it wasn't required for women to wear the head scarf (and many didn't). Moreover, the education system was more equal among genders and so on. It was only post-revolution that many of these things regressed once more. So, it's not entirely accurate to think that the laws in Iran were always like this or that there hasn't been any social development. The sad thing is that Iran has actually regressed further into this state, compared to what it was becoming pre-revolution.[/font]

[QUOTE=Patronus] I believe in order to truly captivate readers, you have to have a certain aspect of mystery. Because- no matter who you are- you get intrigued by things you don't know. And then, because you're so pulled into the mystery, you read on and pay attention. [/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think it's probably just that we are only seeing one thing at this point and there do not appear to be any indications of other factors/causes. As a result, it tends to lead one to believe that he committed suicide only due to the romantic relationship that he's in. So if I were to give advice on this piece, I'd say that perhaps you could provide some more subtle hints about other aspects of his life that may have influenced his suicide. Even then, without knowing the full story, a seed will have been planted in readers' minds. Nevertheless, I thought this was a good, well-written piece. It'd definitely be interesting to see it fleshed out further.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Very well written, but I can't help feeling that there must be more to this character than what we're being shown here. I mean, is this character just committing suicide because he isn't getting love from this man? Surely there's more to it than that. Or maybe he isn't getting love at all and desperately wants it? I guess it makes me feel a bit torn - in some respects I don't feel any sympathy for this character at all, because if he's getting involved with a married man, then surely he knows he'll always come off second best. No two ways about it. On the other hand, perhaps he's naive and perhaps there's more to his life than this story suggests. In that sense, it's a little easier to feel sympathy for him, because he only wants love...and I guess everyone deserves that.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I basically agree with Dagger, in the sense that sometimes people should be willing to put their humanity and relationships before discriminatory laws. Whether they knew about the anti-gay laws or not is questionable, because I can imagine this sort of thing not being openly discussed in the country. I mean, we don't know under what circumstances other gay people have been arrested, you know? Perhaps they lived in a more remote area, or were never aware of other gay people being arrested. *shrug* In any case, it's obviously a horrible thing. It reminds me of the laws from Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, which were insanely restrictive and basically anti-freedom in every sense of the word.[/font]

[QUOTE=Lady Asphyxia][font=Arial Narrow][size=2]Actually, it [i]does[/i] have an R rating, but when a video game is rated R, it's not allowed to be sold. [img]http://otakuboards.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img] See, the Office of Classifications has to take into account the lowest common denominator. Even if it isn't [i]just [/i]kids who play the game, kids [i]do play[/i], and having a modification that does that puts it in danger. The reason it's banned, in my opinion, would be because it was already M15+. It's just been jacked up to a higher rating, which, unfortunately, puts it over the limit. The board is just doing its job -- Ratings are for parents to be aware of what their [i]children[/i] are playing. So, while, personally I don't agree with the banning, I can totally understand it, lol. [/size][/font][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]The problem is that we [i]don't[/i] have an R-rating for video games. If a game passes the MA15+ barrier, it is relegated to "NR" status. Any software that reaches this status is not fit for sale, under current regulations. Obviously, this is ridiculous. The fact that video games do not have an R-rating is an indication of only one thing - that, by the government at least, games are still regarded as being primarily for children. When you actually look at the number of adults playing games (adults being in the vast majority), this makes no sense whatsoever. Our system is still significantly better than America's. Our system is somewhat self-regulated, but we actually have laws and regulations to ensure that retailers are not allowed to sell MA15+ games to kids (you must either be over eighteen or you must have your parent with you to purchase a game with that rating). Even when I was younger, I remember trying to buy games and being asked to bring my parent along. So, while I agree with the enforcement of ratings (because if they aren't enforced, there is no reason to have them other than public information - which is fine, but probably not enough), I also think that the ratings themselves need to be reasonable. There is no reason whatsoever that San Andreas cannot be classified R and be sold as any R-rated film would. You can walk into K-Mart or Sanity or HMV tomorrow and buy Pulp Fiction, which is rated R. Why then, can you not buy San Andreas, also rated R? Ridiculous. This is my only major problem with the system here in Australia. Major, major double standard going on.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]If we'd had that suicide thread two years ago (and probably even more recently), it could easily have become some big flaming situation or whatever. But look at it. There are strong disagreements, but the whole thing is pretty darn civil and pretty well thought out. Even the newer members are posting with considerable length and patience. Surely that can only be regarded as a positive thing. The same can be said for various music threads we have here and so on. People still disagree strongly and there are still varying views, but generally speaking, everyone is pretty in-depth and pretty good with their manner toward others. So no, I am not concerned about any reduction in quality. Quality goes up and down by the day, but it's generally always on the incline - there's plenty of evidence of that site-wide.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think that this sort of thing is natural and occurs at any medium or larger sized forum. So that's probably the first point I'd make. However, the longer you are around, the more of these threads you inevitably come across. As a result, you both see the same basic arguments and you also see some new comments from newer members who may not have participated before. As for the repeating threads I don't like, well, there are many. Religious threads do not generally bother me, because sometimes they can be very interesting. For example, people may be discussing the finer points of a religious philosophy, or they might be clarifying and explaining their religious and spiritual views. When people discuss such things - and reveal their philosophies on life in general - I usually find that worth reading. Obviously though, as with anything, these threads can become iffy if one or two people decide to try to hijack them and turn the whole thing into a big argument. It should be noted, however, that arguments and debates are probably slightly different - one can have a debate that is respectful, without it being labeled flaming or something. In my time here, I have been involved in both kinds of threads - the debate kind and the argument kind. I remember one religious thread in particular, where I was not only flamed (by some very prominent members), but I was also denied any right to express an opinion. My viewpoint is that even if someone disagrees with your view, you can still express it - as long as you do it in a way that isn't deliberately inflammatory. No matter what I say, I probably risk offending at least one other person, so I try to phrase things in a way that emphasizes that these are my personal feelings and I do generally respect others' right to have their own view. However, there are times where I can try to express my view in a myriad of ways, but it will still not get through. This becomes a problem because I am not only misinterpreted, but various assumptions are made about me that are simply inaccurate. It's difficult because I try to avoid such things myself and it can be very awkward to post in threads that degenerate into something like that. Still, repetition of threads can be a good thing in this sense. Where one thread about religion or politics may fail, another may do quite well. The mixture is good and the mixture of members is good too. And as always, if I don't want to post there (and I often don't), I can simply avoid the thread. As I always say, this is the beautiful thing about the Internet in general - no use complaining about threads you don't like if nobody is forcing you to post in them (or even read them). There are some threads that I will never like; mostly stuff that deals with abortion or something. If everyone simply stated their views, that would be fine. But people invariably respond to each other and start accusing one another of things - it's not good. On the one hand, I don't want to ban such threads, but on the other, they invariably lead to more than "heated debate". So it's a very difficult issue for anyone to deal with. I suppose that beyond those threads, I don't generally like relationship threads. Sure, they are fine if you're interested and I'm sure people want some advice, which is completely reasonable. But I personally dislike a good 99% of them, because I often think that people are asking for solutions to incredibly simple problems. Usually, the words "communication", "patience" and "logic" would probably answer a good majority of these threads.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think it's important in any discussion about suicide (or anything of this nature), not to make general, sweeping statements. Or at least, not to make assumptions. Many of us probably know someone who has committed suicide, or someone who has actually been suicidal. My uncle on my dad's side committed suicide for example. What's my opinion on suicide? Well, it's a mixture of things. It's tragic, it's selfish, it's heartbreaking, it's pathetic, it's sometimes inevitable, it's sometimes easily-preventable, it's sometimes image-related and sometimes highly genuine, it's a last resort, etc etc... I don't think I could ever apply one particular view to it. This is because each circumstance is quite different. Sometimes - and quite often, it seems - suicide is about revenge on the living, about attention-seeking. When I say this, I think I do risk being misinterpreted. When I say that, I don't mean that it's some hollow thing and that people who take their lives are normal human beings who are simply being bratty. No, not at all. Actually, attetion-seeking can still be the [i]symptom[/i] of very serious problems. And that's important to remember. People can commit suicide over relatively trivial things (like a partner leaving them - trivial in terms of overall existence) and their reasons for doing so might be to get back at that person. Does this mean that their feelings of emptiness or betrayal are any less severe? No. It's just that they are having an extreme reaction to the situation. Of course, there are many other reasons for suicide. Sometimes suicide is somewhat accidental (in the case of many drug overdoses - perhaps it's almost inevitable in some of those cases, but also slightly unintentional). Sometimes suicide is the result of a failed "failed attempt", which is ironic but true at times. So yeah, I do think that as with anything, it's important to appreciate the many circumstances that can be in play here. Is suicide preventable? In many cases, it probably is. But sometimes people are built a certain way, I think - they are less able to cope and perhaps they are inherently unable to acquire the tools to do so. As a result, it is presumably much more difficult to prevent something like this. So yes, you can [i]try[/i] to help someone. But they have to [i]want[/i] to make a change, just as with drug addiction or anything else. No amount of talking or preaching or whatever is going to make an iota of difference if that person has no desire whatsoever to get assistance. The main thing that annoys me about suicide is the people who wear it on their sleeve like some kind of badge of honor. You know, constantly telling us about their millions of suicide attempts, or always talking in suicidal terms - but without having any intention to carry it out and without being truly suicidal. Not only do such people do a tremendous disservice to those with real problems, but they also cynically attract attention/admiration/sympathy from those around them. [i]That[/i] kind of fakeness is the sort of thing that I really despise.[/font]

[QUOTE=Archangel][FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][SIZE=1][color=#990000] But now...with the sound waves emanating from the black dot...It just [I][B]screams[/B][/I] click me. [/SIZE][/color][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Bingo. That's why it's there. ^_^ However, I have an idea for a button that will contain animation with greater subtlety (but still be animated). Hopefully you'll see that quite soon, among a few other little fixes.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Are you talking about OtakuBoards or forums in general? If you are talking about OtakuBoards specifically, you may want to check out the ten thousand other threads related to thread quality discussion. ~_^[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I originally had another image of him in the sidebar, but I didn't want to repeat him. It just didn't look right. Instead I used a drawn scene from Tokyo. I like the idea of a character and a scene, rather than a repeat of a character. And you don't get a scene more appropriate than Tokyo. ~_^ I might try to finalize some of these graphics later today, if time allows. I have some work ahead of me, dealing with non-graphic things on this site. So that'll probably take up the bulk of my time.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm still not entirely happy with the Jukebox button, but I'll get there. One of the main things with V7 was that people didn't know they could click that Jukebox button and actually bring up a music player. Even people who have been here for a while were surprised. Perhaps this is because it looked too much like an embedded part of the navigation menu and it was easy to ignore. The current version has a little broadcast animation on it, which may give it a bit more prominence. But I really hate useless and annoying animation on sites, so I've tried to make it subtle with a nice gap between movements. It's still not quite right though, so I will probably continue to tweak it; you will no doubt see further changes to this default skin. It's amazing how a few minor changes can make the site look quite fresh, though. I am still happy with the Liquid skin, but this is my opportunity to further refine a few areas that I wasn't as happy with before. People have suggested that I put the skin up for download for people to edit and I've talked about that before so I won't do it again here. What I will say, though, is that I am planning something that goes a little further than that. Whether it pans out or not, I don't know. Either way, it should be good for OtakuBoards.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'll probably make an announcement about this feature once I've finished fixing up a few bits and pieces on the site. So this is a good reminder to pay attention to site-wide announcements. ~_^ People will have the opportunity to get involved with this new forum before it even opens, so hopefully that will give me an early indication of who might be interested. But yes, the forum's purpose is not really a secret - it's a forum for online gaming communities. However, it is not a regular discussion forum. Gaming clans/groups can go through a simple application process to acquire their own personal sub-forum within The Nexus. This should be useful for start-up clans and groups who don't have the resources to build their own forum. The application process will be very simple and easy, so it shouldn't deter anyone.[/font]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1] [b]Edit[/b]: After a couple of refreshes, it seems to have changed most things. But I don't feel that this Launch Jukebox button fits in as well as the previous one did. It just doesn't blend in well. Perhaps if it appeared more embedded?[/size][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, it's not quite what I'm wanting at the moment. I'm still going to change and tweak a few things over the coming days I suspect. Basically, all of these graphics were made when I'd been without sleep for about twenty four hours. So that can be blamed for any inconsistencies, hehe. But yeah, I'm not entirely happy with the Jukebox icon either. And the New Thread and Reply buttons (the bigger ones) have yet to be made. The ones that are there right now are just placeholders.[/font]

[QUOTE=Chaos]I'd be more worried that your hue change of the main header bled through to the guy's shoulder...>_> Unless of course that's what it was supposed to do. Heh. [/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I re-made the top banner, as it was degrading in quality each time I saved it. It's correct now, the pinkishness is gone and there are no hue problems. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Some things are still changing, so your browser make take some time to load everything. This is not intended to be a whole new skin, though. I'm just taking Liquid and freshening it up in a few small areas. Glad you like the changes though. I will do a few more tweaks over the coming days and we'll get that single pixel white space at the top repaired too. I'll also soon be introducing The Nexus and a couple of other little enhancements. So yeah, stay tuned I guess. ^_^[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Speaking of the Renaissance, don't forget that it was the Christian leadership who led the world into the stranglehold of the Victorian era, which society is still recovering from today. Anyway, I don't know why any of this stuff is considered worthy of debate. If religion did not exist, greedy and power-hungry people would use other excuses to murder people for no real reason. Although I think that organized religion is generally a negative thing for various reasons, I am aware that the religion itself is nothing without people to interpret and enforce it. So, what matters is not so much the religion and its philosophies. What matters is where and how they are applied and by whom. There are people who use religion for good things - for constructive things - and there are people (usually the most powerful), who use it for negative, hateful things. Doesn't matter if it's religion or politics or any other human invention - it can always be used as a tool for both constructive and destructive things.[/font]