00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Kiler91 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Why is this acceptable?

2,672 Views | 40 Replies

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 04:09:41 (edited 2015-05-09 04:13:29)


Because they're not blam worthy. As crappy as you might think they are someone obviously put a decent amount of effort into making them. Are they good? Not really. But they're not such utter trash that they deserve to be blammed either. I'd show you an example of a flash that is blamworthy, but being that they're all already blammed, I can't.

Although I'll be honest, that tank game... probably will end up blammed eventually. That really does suck lol. That last movie wasn't that horrible though.

Actually, on second thought. Na. The tank game is decent enough to stay up, but it'll have a dismally low score forever no doubt.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 04:13:23


At 5/9/15 04:09 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: Because they're not blam worthy. As crappy as you might think they are someone obviously put a decent amount of effort into making them. Are they good? Not really. But they're not such utter trash that they deserve to be blammed either. I'd show you an example of a flash that is blamworthy, but being that they're all already blammed, I can't.

No, those two first games should defenitely be blammed. Either this, or either this and http://www.newgrounds.com/dump/item/0341d701b2829d5cb91be0ef9f1f173f should at least get score of 2,3 which is not acceptable either.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 04:15:39


because that's how NG works


BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 04:22:44


I would say that out of all of these, the Shadow of the Knight one is the most blamworthy, but still not shitty enough to actually be blammed. I can actually play that game and get a small bit of enjoyment out of it, although it is still admittedly really shitty.

For the Baltic Gambit game, I dont think it was really that bad. I mean yeah, it wasn't really good, but it wasn't nearly shitty enough to be blammed altogether.

And definitely for the Game Grumps movie, that is not blamworthy at all. There's obvious effort in the art and animations, although it wasn't really that entertaining to watch.

So basically dismally low scores for all of these, but not blamworthy, except maybe the Shadow of the Knight one. Maybe.

When you vote on a submission you're voting based on a variety of factors. The art/graphics, the animation quality, the audio, the gameplay, story, etc. You have to take all of these into account. With some of these, they aren't doing bad in some respects while doing really bad in others. As long as they do good in at least one, I don't think its blamworthy.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 04:27:09


At 5/9/15 04:20 AM, SocialistClock wrote: Dude, idk just down vote the stiff you dont like. Thats how Democracy works

Democracy? That system where two drunken hobos have more voting influence than one university professor? Gee, it's great we have this one.

Aren't there like too little masturbation threads on the 1st page of General? I think you have things to do elsewhere.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 04:31:48


ITT: You don't agree with me? YOU'RE STUPID!

That's pretty much how it's playing out, big mak.


Happily ETS'd.

BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 04:41:13


At 5/9/15 04:31 AM, TailsPrower wrote: ITT: You don't agree with me? YOU'RE STUPID!

That's pretty much how it's playing out, big mak.

I can't help the fact that I'm always right.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 06:10:00


All those games sucked, Yellvis was alright, 2-3 stars at max.


"Till one day, that lion gets up and tears the shit out of everybody."

BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 08:46:21


Not to backseat or nothin, but you should post this in Elite Guard Barracks.
You would get better answers anyway.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 09:28:57


At 5/9/15 09:22 AM, SansNumbers wrote: This is what happens in a democratic filter system, when the people behind the voting are people who say "BLAM DIS SHIT!!!!!" five years after something has passed judgement. Though I don't think people do that anymore so I'm going to assume people have gotten less stupid and more apathetic.

Have it occured to you that I might have actually voted on these submissions when they were under judgement and despite that we have what we have on portal today and that's not because of me, but the rest of community and that's why I might've actually taken this issue to the rest of the community asking why is this acceptable instead of blaming myself?

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 10:49:43


Simply, they don't have low enough scores to be blammed. There are some flashes I've seen that have scores I simply don't agree with. If nothing else, it could be that the ones with the highest scores have a lot of people who support them, like how the Star Syndicate got Review Crew Pick all those times.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 11:17:27


At 5/9/15 10:42 AM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote: I'd like to know in what universe a democratic system has voted in more drunken hobos than university professors.

That's around 70% of current democratic countries. Bad things can happen when majority with no standards can vote on something that requires standards. But I bet you're happy with your current government officials that were surely elected for great political programme and their comprehension of the problems by group of wise political scientists who know what's actually good for the country. Not by a bunch of random people of legal age (half of which barely educated at all, especially when it comes to political scientes) for making a good appearance on a full-blown multi million dollar campaign and promising them bunch of socialist promises like cheaper healthcare.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 13:43:36 (edited 2015-05-09 13:46:20)


At 5/9/15 11:43 AM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote:
At 5/9/15 11:17 AM, Makakaov wrote:
That's around 70% of current democratic countries.
Please show me a list of countries in which drunken hobos have been elected democratically into power.

You did not understand the primiary thesis then. I never stated that in democracy drunken hobos are elected. I stated that two drunken hobos have more votes, therefore more voting influence than one university professor, which is true, and in practice has fatal consequences.

Besides, USA had Ulysses Grant for president who was pretty much drowning in alcohol and debts. I'd go on and make some valid research on presidents from different republics that had drunken hobos for presidents but I don't really feel like. If you're interested you can do this research yourself, you'll learn something.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 16:49:27


Remember when the obituaries would have like 100-200 submissions per day? My first account on here actually had more blam points than save points, and I wasn't a zero bomber or anything.
That can be attributed to there being more submissions per day overall, but the ratio of blams to saves has dropped tremendously over the years.
Now it's more like ... not even 10 per day.
Infact ...

Why is this acceptable?


BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 17:25:07


At 5/9/15 04:49 PM, LightningLion wrote: Remember when the obituaries would have like 100-200 submissions per day? My first account on here actually had more blam points than save points, and I wasn't a zero bomber or anything.
That can be attributed to there being more submissions per day overall, but the ratio of blams to saves has dropped tremendously over the years.
Now it's more like ... not even 10 per day.
Infact ...

Instead of focusing on bad submissions not getting low enough scores, the real focus should be on why stuff like this doesn't have 5 stars:

Granted, all of these have their imperfections, but if you consider when these were made and how they stacked up against other flash being produced during those days... all of this should really have at least 4 and 1/2 stars, minimum.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 17:37:39


At 5/9/15 05:25 PM, DJ-Ri wrote:
Instead of focusing on bad submissions not getting low enough scores, the real focus should be on why stuff like this doesn't have 5 stars

I guess a lot of kids with tiny attention spans came/come here just for the lulz.


BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 17:57:59


At 5/9/15 02:17 PM, Sensationalism wrote: It's easier to get BP points passing things than blamming them.

It really is. You have people 5ing damn near everything no matter what it is just so they can get saves.
I keep it balanced and almost never give out 5s unless its fucking amazing video/game/art/music.

At 5/9/15 04:49 PM, LightningLion wrote: Now it's more like ... not even 10 per day.
Infact ...

I wanna say @Tom said at least once that those numbers aren't accurate.


Formally known as Viper50

When you get into one of these groups theres only a couple of ways you can get out. One is death. The other is mental institution.

Last.fm Youtube

BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 18:13:50



At 6/24/15 11:11 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:

: CorpseGrinder is the Undertaker of the Portal.

BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 18:22:15


Reminder that B didn't get blammed either


 

BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 18:52:45


I remember back in the day when it was a big deal for things to get through the portal, maybe we we're all a lot meaner back in the day.


BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-09 19:55:33 (edited 2015-05-09 19:56:11)


At 5/9/15 06:52 PM, Ganon-Dorf wrote: I remember back in the day when it was a big deal for things to get through the portal

I remember NEVER too. Can't we go back to NEVER? Things were way better back in NEVER.


At 6/24/15 11:11 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:

: CorpseGrinder is the Undertaker of the Portal.

BBS Signature

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-10 07:39:09


At 5/9/15 04:23 PM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote: If they have more votes then it means they are getting into power. That is the basics of democracy. Show me where they are getting into power then, unless of course you don't understand the basics of democracy.

No. If they have more votes then it means they have more votes. If christianity is major religion in USA then why there isn't a christian party at power? Despite actual structures of organisation christian churches aren't focused on gaining power. Lowliwe scum will always be a major group, it's a trait of huge countries. But it's unorganised, uneducated and lacks charisma. These are primiary reasons why hobos aren't at power despite having huge potential electorate. You claim you know something about democracy. You might have your own definition at best. It takes more than a stupid own understanding of the term to understand how the whole system works in reality.

Or better yet show me proof that 70% of democratic countries have drunken hobos running for office and getting more votes than college professors that are running against them. The drunken hobos don't have to win their election race they just need more votes than the professor. Find me proof that this happens 70% of the time.

You're still commiting the same logical fallacy. Just because Democracy's flaw is that two dumb people have more votes than one educated smart person doesn't mean that all of a sudden all dumbasses are a well organised political power and surpass smart demagogues in any given election. If you want you can dig a little and see yourself how many fuckheads and lowlifes are actually starting in elections or at least try to register themselves but fail to do so. There's lots of people like that but you don't get to hear them because they're local idiots who get handful of votes at best.

Ulysses Grant was an alcoholic however he was employed as a general prior to being elected to public office and had received a secondary level education from West Point Military Academy, a far cry from a hobo.

You should take a closer look at his efficiency at West Point. He was like the worst student in his class and barely even finished that academy. He had military education so of course he was hired as a military commander. Despite being a general he still was a hopeless drunkard, but lucky enough to have someone to slap him in the face to sober him up when it was truly needed. Despite being a general he pretty much lived like a hobo.

I don't need to do the research, this me calling you out on your bullshit statement. You need to prove it now, you're being called out.

We're not discussing some new science theories that actually have to be proven by author to be recognised as true. I'm just stating the obvious. If you're so uneducated that you don't have such obvious knowledge then It's not really my problem. I'm not your teacher, if you seek actual knowledge then go get it yourself, you were already given hints on what to look for in this matter. You can live till the rest of your life believing that Earth is flat or that in democracy one person has more votes than two other persons for all I care.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-10 10:03:08


At 5/10/15 07:39 AM, Makakaov wrote: No. If they have more votes then it means they have more votes. If christianity is major religion in USA then why there isn't a christian party at power?

I wouldn't really call Democrats not Christians. Okay, that probably is the political party you associate with secularism, but most politicians are certainly Christians.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-10 12:59:36 (edited 2015-05-10 13:11:36)


At 5/10/15 12:27 PM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote:
At 5/10/15 07:39 AM, Makakaov wrote:

No. If they have more votes then it means they have more votes. If christianity is major religion in USA then why there isn't a christian party at power?
You've obviously never heard of the Republican Party.

There is a difference between teocratic party and conservative party. Republican Party of USA is not "Christian". It shares some values with christianity. Besides current party at power is Democratic party, so apparently your argument is still invalid. Christianity is just one of many possible examples to demonstrate that your argument is invalid.

Despite actual structures of organisation christian churches aren't focused on gaining power. Lowliwe scum will always be a major group, it's a trait of huge countries. But it's unorganised, uneducated and lacks charisma. These are primiary reasons why hobos aren't at power despite having huge potential electorate. You claim you know something about democracy. You might have your own definition at best. It takes more than a stupid own understanding of the term to understand how the whole system works in reality.
You're going pretty far off topic here, when you come back can you pick up some bread and eggs for me?

My argument from that paragraph stays.

You're still commiting the same logical fallacy. Just because Democracy's flaw is that two dumb people have more votes than one educated smart person doesn't mean that all of a sudden all dumbasses are a well organised political power and surpass smart demagogues in any given election. If you want you can dig a little and see yourself how many fuckheads and lowlifes are actually starting in elections or at least try to register themselves but fail to do so. There's lots of people like that but you don't get to hear them because they're local idiots who get handful of votes at best.
Look all of this is verbal bullshit. I am telling you right now to find me proof that 70% of democratic systems have alcoholic homeless vagabonds receiving more votes than college professors.

You're coming to the wrong person then. My initial thesis was that two lowlifes have more votes than one educated smart person. You go asking me for some governments with hobos for presidents. You want an example? Your family. You could aswell ask me for churches run by altair boys in the situation where I would say that altair boys do more singing in churches than priests. Your inability to understand one sentence does not entitle you to some special care. If you don't get it, then you can "shut the fuck up".

You can either do it or shut the fuck up. You made a statement and this entire time its been me calling you out on it. Bring up the facts or admit your statement was wrong and shut the fuck up.

Quote my initial thesis.

He was an average student with above grades in geology and math. So no, he was not the "worst student in his class". He had a house he had a job he was employed, he was not an hobo, he was an alcoholic.

Grant would recieve demerits for not being able to comply to the dress code and being late on several occasions. He had bad grades despite being good at two subjects. Himself he said "I never succeeded in getting squarely at either end of my class, in any one study during the four years". Trust me, there's more to one's life than wikipedia. Before getting regular officer salary that would cover his drinking and family upkeep he couldn't really handle life. Also, you're probably mistaking hobo with a bum, or other euphemism for homeless broke drunkard.

Just admit you're wrong. There is no obvious knowledge that alcoholic homeless vagabonds are getting all these votes.

I never claimed that.

Your only example was from 150 years ago and it was fucking wrong as the man was not a "drunken hobo" but an employed educated military general with a house and struggling with alcoholism.

The man you're talking about had to pawn his precious shit to have money for cheap christmas presents for his family because he couldn't handle his private life, lucky enough to find a job that would suit him after few years of misery.

At 5/10/15 12:31 PM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote:
At 5/9/15 11:17 AM, Makakaov wrote:
At 5/9/15 10:42 AM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote: I'd like to know in what universe a democratic system has voted in more drunken hobos than university professors.
That's around 70% of current democratic countries.
SHOW ME THE FUCKING FACTS, SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS TRUE. SHOW ME THE 70% OF COUNTRIES THIS HAPPENS IN WHERE HOMELESS ALCOHOLIC VAGABONDS AND MIGRANT WORKERS HAVE MORE INFLUENCE THAN COLLEGE PROFESSORS. FUCKING DO IT. SHOW ME THE GODDAMN EVIDENCE. SHOULDN'T BE HARD IF ITS SO GODDAMN OBVIOUS!

What does "to vote in" mean? Is it a term that can be found in English dictionary? To be honest I understood that you understood my claim and asked in which country hobos did bring to power someone just for bunch of cheap promises, because irresponsible stupid majority has more power than actually educated aware minority. Instead you're asking for something you never mentioned. It's not my problem, lmao.

At 5/10/15 10:03 AM, Ericho wrote:
At 5/10/15 07:39 AM, Makakaov wrote: No. If they have more votes then it means they have more votes. If christianity is major religion in USA then why there isn't a christian party at power?
I wouldn't really call Democrats not Christians. Okay, that probably is the political party you associate with secularism, but most politicians are certainly Christians.

There's a difference between actual christian party, and party that happens to also consist of christian politicians. Both Democrat and Republican parties' programme is not christian. It might share some moral values but it's not focused on christian dogma.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-10 13:25:27


At 5/10/15 01:06 PM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote:
At 5/10/15 12:59 PM, Makakaov wrote: More bullshit stall tactics
I don't care I don't care I don't fucking care. You said 70% of democratic countries have drunken hobos(this is the term you originally used) that have more influence than college professors and I want you to prove it.

It's probably more than 70%. Didn't I use word "like" before that 70%? Besides I don't think I mentioned any college proffesors if you want to be so specific, so I can dismiss your arguemnt just now. You want to know where two hobos have more voting influence than one university professor? In a democratic country, that's where, because in democracy the will is set by the majority, so in case where two vote against one, those two will win, get it? There's no any special rules to what group has how many votes so in situation where there are two hobos and one university professor, the two hobos have more votes than said university professor. Do you get it now? Do I have to spell it out for you?

I want you to show me the studies that have been done I want to see numbers done by groups with some credit to their name. Show me the fucking numbers.

If you need studies to have such obvious thing proven to you then you should contact some statistic centre and ask them to do some studies for you. It's not my job.

Show me the numbers or just admit you're wrong.

I'm not going to show you the numbers, nor please your childlish pampered self.

ho·bo
a homeless person; a tramp or vagrant.
synonyms: tramp, vagrant, vagabond, derelict; informalbum, down-and-out; drifter, transient, itinerant
"he decides to take to the road with only ten cents in his pocket, intending to live as a hobo"

I asked for definition of "to vote in", not a "hobo".

Please show me where drunken hobos have more influence then professors in 70% of cases.

What influence? Voting influence? Get yourself a list of all officials elected in democratic countries and sort them to groups of ones who actually did something good and those who just came to power and did nothing at all or have worsened things. Then get yourself a percent proportion of these groups and you will see yourself. Go on, you have all the data you need.

He'll I'd be surprised if you could find one case where they had more influence.

Well, there's a case of democratic voting of course.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-10 13:30:51


At 5/10/15 01:29 PM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote:
At 5/10/15 01:25 PM, Makakaov wrote: More bullshit
Show me the numbers. You simply saying they exist doesn't mean shit here son. Stop avoiding. Show me the goddamn numbers or shut the fuck up and get the fuck out.

around 70%

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-10 13:40:01 (edited 2015-05-10 13:41:01)


At 5/10/15 01:32 PM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote:
At 5/10/15 01:30 PM, Makakaov wrote:
At 5/10/15 01:29 PM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote:
At 5/10/15 01:25 PM, Makakaov wrote: More bullshit
Show me the numbers. You simply saying they exist doesn't mean shit here son. Stop avoiding. Show me the goddamn numbers or shut the fuck up and get the fuck out.
around 70%
Show me actual proof.

What proof, that two hobos have more votes than one university professor in a democratic country? here. One person of certain age gets one vote. If there are two people, there are two votes. If there's one person, there's one vote. So now, 2 > 1. See it? Now, replace 2 with "votes of 2 hobos" and replace 1 with "vote of one university professor" Get it? I bet you do, you're such a smart boy! Now open yourself a list of democratic countries in the world. Look at their sizes. I'll give you a hint there: In small countries democracy works better and stupid disorganised masses aren't so easily fooled into voting for cheap demagogic promises! See it now? Around 70% of democratic is too big for everyone to actually know who he/she is voting for. That's why around 70%

Otherwise I know for a fact you are 100% retarded and according to your logic if I say that its "an obvious fact" then its kosher.

Oh no, only not some perverted kid on a gimmic account thinking I'm retarded! What would I do with myself?

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-10 13:54:54 (edited 2015-05-10 13:55:40)


At 5/10/15 01:42 PM, PhilTheThrillKessel wrote:
At 5/10/15 01:40 PM, Makakaov wrote: I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about
Nope. You said drunken hobos have more influence.

I'll just quote myself here:

At 5/9/15 04:27 AM, Makakaov wrote: Democracy? That system where two drunken hobos have more voting influence than one university professor? Gee, it's great we have this one.

voting influence. Simple "influence" is a general term, I specified what I meant.

I wanna see election results where this is true.

So here are some polish drunken hobos who vote for "PO", and here's one famous polish professor who votes for "ODŚ". Here's list of presidents with the last position on the list showing the president who was elected. It's Bronisław Komorowski from "PO". These are your election results and your hobos.

I wanna see when drunken hobo Billy Bob got more votes than a university professor. Show me where this is happening.

Let's try again. Each person gets one vote. There are two hobos and one professor. Now, two hobos combined have two votes. One professor has just one vote. 2 is higher than 1. So, two votes have more voting power than one vote. Therefore two combined vote owners have more voting influence than one person. So "drunken Billy Bob" doesn't get more votes than university professor, but combined with his other friend he has more votes than said professor.

Response to Why is this acceptable? 2015-05-10 13:57:42


Shadow of Knight is such a good game though.


Ecchi first, ask questions never.

BBS Signature