At 11/27/04 07:10 PM, FLiXD wrote:

At 11/27/04 06:55 PM, randyrandy wrote: .if you rate a movie/game 0 that is rated 1.0 or less and has over 400 votes on it, and it is not Under Judgement, is there a chance that i will get a blam point?

You can only get blam points on movies that are Under Judgement

Yea, but when i try to vote on the movies under judgement..the voting thing wont show up..to take its place it says 'VOTE PANEL WILL APPEAR ONCE THIS SUBMISSION IS LOADED.' Do i vote on a movie that has a rating of less then 1.0 and hope that it goes underjudgement?

At 11/27/04 07:13 PM, randyrandy wrote: Yea, but when i try to vote on the movies under judgement..the voting thing wont show up..to take its place it says 'VOTE PANEL WILL APPEAR ONCE THIS SUBMISSION IS LOADED.' Do i vote on a movie that has a rating of less then 1.0 and hope that it goes underjudgement?

Have you tried actually clicking the button that says "Watch This Movie" or "Play This Game"?

I am looking forward to this update, i may finally breach the top 300,

At 11/27/04 07:31 PM, Mr_Fluffykins wrote: I am looking forward to this update, i may finally breach the top 300,

Wtf , i clicked the wrong topic......sorry!!!1!!

Have you tried actually clicking the button that says "Watch This Movie" or "Play This Game"?

Yea on the other movies, also the rating thing is alrady there..so i was wondering if im not allowed to vote on the movies under-judgement. Thanks alot though!

At 11/27/04 07:43 PM, randyrandy wrote:

Have you tried actually clicking the button that says "Watch This Movie" or "Play This Game"?

Yea on the other movies, also the rating thing is alrady there..so i was wondering if im not allowed to vote on the movies under-judgement. Thanks alot though!

You must have a comprehension problem. "VOTE PANEL WILL APPEAR ONCE THIS SUBMISSION IS LOADED." That means you have to actually watch the game/movie before you vote on it. You know, so you actually have some idea of the quality of the thing before you make an immediate vote.

You must have a comprehension problem. "VOTE PANEL WILL APPEAR ONCE THIS SUBMISSION IS LOADED." That means you have to actually watch the game/movie before you vote on it. You know, so you actually have some idea of the quality of the thing before you make an immediate vote.

I dont know..i thought submission meant the Vote panel..geez cool it off!! =)

At 11/27/04 09:52 PM, randyrandy wrote: I dont know..i thought submission meant the Vote panel..geez cool it off!! =)

Ok I using something masde for depositing but should claear things up. WHere it was watch this movie it may say play this game. THen the voting panel will appear. Vote 0-5 depending on the quality of the submission.

Can anyone give me a list of the level titles for Blam/Saves? I know the names, just not the order.

At 11/28/04 02:37 PM, captain-t wrote: Can anyone give me a list of the level titles for Blam/Saves? I know the names, just not the order.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=67869

At 11/24/04 06:07 AM, D0GMA wrote:

At 11/23/04 03:09 AM, IV_KOME_4_U wrote: grrr i was getting close to getting17 back then thisisasignin had to wake up :P

Poor sod lol He's in the home stretch to SC, so I doubt he's slowing down anytime soon. Aim for Ryo; he's not going anywhere ... or better yet IKRU lol) .

Yeah, no kidding. Not only is he not slowing down... he's been moving SUPER fast lately.

At 11/23/04 10:28 AM, XwaynecoltX wrote: haha i dont really care but i do get a few points here and there, so you never know...

"Here and there" isn't going to cut it with all the speedies working their way up. ~shrug~ you've had a long, respectable haul in the 50. Letting it slide while you work on your reviews is a mighty good reason ;)

Yeah, but if he wants to be the fastest to doublelist on the pentalist, he needs his blams, too. :::nods:::

At 11/25/04 01:07 AM, Rabid-Echidna wrote: I'm the only one on that particular list, feeling me with a sense of victorious isolation. Or something like that.

I'm pretty sure, BTW, Dogma... that Rabid knows he's not the only person above 10,000 blams, just that he was the only one to hit it for that update. #;-}>

I haven't had much time to be on lately anyway. I've been busy trying to set up all the stuff for my new femputer, and the networking card is being a piece of crap with a spotty connection. Plus, I need more RAM. The good news is that it's 2.8 GHZ processor is actually able to play Flashes at high quality at the speed they were intended to go at, whereas my old .4 GHZ processor computer struggled to play them at about half the speed they were supposed to go at while in low quality.

Don't knock your "old .4 GHZ" CPU... I've been using THIS old 0.26 ghz CPU for 7 years now, with no end in sight and no >1 ghz CPU waiting for me anytime soon. And yep, low-quality-and-still-sluggish isn't always fun.

At 11/26/04 01:04 PM, D0GMA wrote:

At 11/25/04 09:05 PM, Nicko9y wrote: I just dont understand this thread...

So why are you bothering to look at it without bothering to READ anything in it. Apparently it was beyond you to go back to page 1 and read the original postings made by gfox to work the reasons for this thread out for yourself ...

Thanks for that, Dogma... Nicko9y seems to have sparked nearly a full page of lameness in this topic for some reason. O_o

At 11/27/04 06:55 PM, randyrandy wrote: I read it over 10 times but i cant figure it out..if you rate a movie/game 0 that is rated 1.0 or less and has over 400 votes on it, and it is not Under Judgement, is there a chance that i will get a blam point? Also will it get judged later? Thankyou for your time reading this, i apologize for this off-topic question.

At 11/27/04 07:13 PM, randyrandy wrote: Yea, but when i try to vote on the movies under judgement..the voting thing wont show up..to take its place it says 'VOTE PANEL WILL APPEAR ONCE THIS SUBMISSION IS LOADED.' Do i vote on a movie that has a rating of less then 1.0 and hope that it goes underjudgement?

Let me see if I can make this clear, in case you still aren't sure of how it all works:

Once a movie reaches 200 votes, it is either blammed or saved by that point... there IS no "under judgement" after that. Under judgement doesn't mean a movie was stolen or inappropriate and is waiting for admin approval (that's "marked for administrative review"). Under judgement only means that a movie is NEW and is waiting for the GENERAL USERS to vote on it enough that it either enters the portal... or dies.

So no, no movie that has reached 400 votes is EVER going to go back under judgement, nope...

Remember, geefox. If you are using the title/author search on the top of the screen, even the "Marked for Administrative Review" flashes are called "Under Judgement"...

At 11/29/04 10:14 PM, gfoxcook wrote:

I'm pretty sure, BTW, Dogma... that Rabid knows he's not the only person above 10,000 blams, just that he was the only one to hit it for that update. #;-}>

You mean I'm not the only person on the site with over 10,000 blam points? Damn.

Don't knock your "old .4 GHZ" CPU... I've been using THIS old 0.26 ghz CPU for 7 years now, with no end in sight and no >1 ghz CPU waiting for me anytime soon. And yep, low-quality-and-still-sluggish isn't always fun.

0.26? Damn...you could at least buy something a bit better than that, like a Pentium 3 since they're cheap now that they've been outdated. You should be able to get one for about $20 on ebay. If nothing else, it'll make low quality run at a decent speed.

At 11/29/04 10:31 PM, RedCircle wrote: Remember, geefox. If you are using the title/author search on the top of the screen, even the "Marked for Administrative Review" flashes are called "Under Judgement"...

Well, that's a misnomer/mislabeling in that case. The simple fact is that there are four types of flash entries on NG:

1) freshly submitted entries waiting to be judged worthy or unworthy of the portal, accessible via ID#s.
2) whistled movies, for whatever reason, that can no longer be viewed by normal users, though the titles still can be via the rip.php + ID# method.
3) blammed movies that were judged unworthy of the portal and lie in the graveyard, but the info/reviews can still be viewed via ID#.
4) normal, protected entries sitting happily in the portal and accessible via their ID#s.

Now, whatever you want to CALL any of these types, you can't call both 2 and 3 "under judgement" because it will lead to the type of confusion that the noob in this topic displayed. Thus, the thing you describe is, IMO, simply an error and can't be passed off as "alternative labeling."

Under Judgement/UJ = movies that were just submitted and haven't reached their final blam or save checkpoints yet.

Marked for Admin Review/Whistled = movies that were whistled off teh protal.

It's that simple. So don't remember-gfox me. #;-}>

At 11/29/04 10:55 PM, Rabid-Echidna wrote: You mean I'm not the only person on the site with over 10,000 blam points? Damn.

Well, it'd be great and all if you were, and all the rest of us instead had 40,000+ saves, but alas... that's just a fantasy world. Blams are in extreme abundance and saves... are not. So no, you're not... there are 75ish peoples whom you've joined in 10k+ blamhood.

0.26? Damn...you could at least buy something a bit better than that, like a Pentium 3 since they're cheap now that they've been outdated. You should be able to get one for about $20 on ebay. If nothing else, it'll make low quality run at a decent speed.

I can't afford a new computer. And continuing to use this one prevents me from wanting to buy new computer games, too. So it's all good. As long as it keeps working, that is.

As for a CPU, I really doubt that a P3 would work with this 1997 motherboard. Maybe I'm wrong, but... eh.

You wrote this before:

At 11/29/04 10:14 PM, gfoxcook wrote: Once a movie reaches 200 votes, it is either blammed or saved by that point... there IS no "under judgement" after that.

Ah, but there is! Yes, it's mislabeled, but it's still written!

Under judgement doesn't mean a movie was stolen or inappropriate and is waiting for admin approval (that's "marked for administrative review").

Yeah, but unfortunately, whistled flashes aren't called "Marked for Administrative Review" in the search.

At 12/1/04 02:01 AM, gfoxcook wrote: It's that simple. So don't remember-gfox me. #;-}>

*sticks tongue out*

I was just letting it be known that when you search, there is a mis-labeling of the Marked/Whistled/Administrative Review flashes. I thought it should be mentioned...

At 12/1/04 02:26 AM, RedCircle wrote: You wrote this before:

At 11/29/04 10:14 PM, gfoxcook wrote: Once a movie reaches 200 votes, it is either blammed or saved by that point... there IS no "under judgement" after that.

Ah, but there is! Yes, it's mislabeled, but it's still written!

Let me try approaching this from a different angle... when I talk about how there can be no UJ after 200 votes up there... you must surely realise that the UJ to which I refer is the ACTUAL UJ that ALL of us mean when we talk about UJ flash, right? The different shade of grey underneath the flash titles at the top of the most recent list, right?

Then "ah, but there is!" is a false statement. The mislabeling elsewhere on the site is just that: MISlabeling. Just because somewhere on the site whistled flashes are mistakenly referred to as still being "UJ" doesn't make them UJ, now does it? O_o

Under judgement doesn't mean a movie was stolen or inappropriate and is waiting for admin approval (that's "marked for administrative review").

Yeah, but unfortunately, whistled flashes aren't called "Marked for Administrative Review" in the search.

Look, to be honest: I didn't think to cover that eventuality because I use "the search" maybe once in a month. It's unfortunate that something is present within NG that is confusing tons of noobs, but it's certainly not the first time... and it won't be the last time. And hell, last I heard... there were still inaccuracies in the relatively-new FAQ that was uploaded last summer!

So, is there really any point in you continuing to insist that just because it SAYS "Under judgement" next to whistled flashes in a certain area of the site... that SEMANTICALLY UJ must mean both UJ AND marked for admin review?! I mean, what's the point of that, man? #;-}>

Here's what it comes down to:

If you go to the URL of a flash that's UJ, you will find that flash and you will see that the votecount/score is hidden and you must open the flash before you can vote to protect or blam.

If you got to the URL of a flash that is Marked for Admin Review, you will find an error message that details that the flash you're trying to access has indeed been marked/whistled already, and you're SOL and can't watch it anymore.

That's what this comes down to. WAKARIMASU KA?! #;-}>

At 12/1/04 02:01 AM, gfoxcook wrote: It's that simple. So don't remember-gfox me. #;-}>

*sticks tongue out*

I was just letting it be known that when you search, there is a mis-labeling of the Marked/Whistled/Administrative Review flashes. I thought it should be mentioned...

You already let it be known the first time you mentioned it. The question is, why do you KEEP letting it be known again and again? #;-}>

Oh, and let me just add this:

If a part of the FAQ currently said "if you vote 2 on a flash that's UJ and it is blammed, you will receive a blampoint"...

tell me, would you be replying to me over and over again when I say that a vote of 2 is a vote to PROTECT and not to blam and telling me something along the lines of this:

"but but but but geefox, a certain small part of the site says a vote of 2 is a vote to BLAM! Yes, we both know that that's wrong, but I must point this out for the third time! EVERYWHERE ELSE ON THE SITE IT MAY SAY THAT'S A PROTECT, BUT ON THIS ONE PART OF THE SITE, IT SAYS THE OPPOSITE! So, because of this, you cannot call 2 a protection vote! *sticks tongue out*"

?

Because if you would... that would be fairly similar to how you won't let it go that a SINGLE part of the site currently misnames whistled/markedforreview flashes as UJ. I REST MY CASE. #;-}>

I was kinda looking for a "Oh, wow RC, that's weird. Thanks for pointing that out..." and then your geefox smiley!

What I got is a slew of silly definitions that I already knew...

I just wanted some love man! #;-}>

At 12/1/04 05:48 AM, RedCircle wrote: I was kinda looking for a "Oh, wow RC, that's weird. Thanks for pointing that out..." and then your geefox smiley!

LOL!

What I got is a slew of silly definitions that I already knew...

Yes, and what made me keep tearing your posts apart to find out the basis of your intentions... was the fact that you kept seemingly attempting to defy the stuff you "already knew." #;-}>

I just wanted some love man! #;-}>

Hmph. There are much better ways of getting love from the geefox than providing him with tempting bits of pointless stat/NG-related debate/argument, yanno!

Just ask Bonus. He knows all the secrets about getting love from me. :::nods:::

At 12/1/04 06:01 AM, gfoxcook wrote:

At 12/1/04 05:48 AM, RedCircle wrote: I was kinda looking for a "Oh, wow RC, that's weird. Thanks for pointing that out..." and then your geefox smiley!

LOL!

Wow, he laughed! ...and I thought you were just in an especially grumpy mood. You never fail to amaze me geefox!

What I got is a slew of silly definitions that I already knew...

Yes, and what made me keep tearing your posts apart to find out the basis of your intentions... was the fact that you kept seemingly attempting to defy the stuff you "already knew." #;-}>

There was no defying. I was just trying to get you to realize that although you know the true definition of UJ, there might be some people out there that see "Under Judgement" in the search, and become confused. That is all my intentions were.

I just wanted some love man! #;-}>

Hmph. There are much better ways of getting love from the geefox than providing him with tempting bits of pointless stat/NG-related debate/argument, yanno!

Yanno, just because I mentioned geefox in my post, doesn't necessarily mean that the information is only for you.

Just ask Bonus. He knows all the secrets about getting love from me. :::nods:::

Yeah, I'll be sure to be another lacky that spams up pages upon pages of one-liners too. Right up there on my to-do list with putting my feet in a lake of lava. :::shakes head furiously:::
____________________

Man, talking to you today is like pulling teeth geefox. What's up man? I thought you knew that I was just a little smarter than that. I'm just a few years younger, I got my kollege degree ... somewhere ... *looks around*

I guess you are just trying to keep me on my toes like a midget in a urinal ;-)

At 12/1/04 06:22 AM, RedCircle wrote:

At 12/1/04 06:01 AM, gfoxcook wrote: LOL!

Wow, he laughed! ...and I thought you were just in an especially grumpy mood. You never fail to amaze me geefox!

Noooooo... Do you really association long-assed technicality-based discussion/debate/argument posts from me... with me being grumpy or pissed off?! #;-}> I made them all the time for Christ's sake! Oy vey. #;-}>

Yes, and what made me keep tearing your posts apart to find out the basis of your intentions... was the fact that you kept seemingly attempting to defy the stuff you "already knew." #;-}>

There was no defying. I was just trying to get you to realize that although you know the true definition of UJ, there might be some people out there that see "Under Judgement" in the search, and become confused. That is all my intentions were.

Yeah, and my first reply to you mentioned that it's unfortunate there's a place where UJ is used in the wrong sense of the term, and that it must be confusing for some noobs, like perhaps the one in this topic who thought that movies with 400 votes could go back "under judgement."

IOW, I agree entirely with that paragraph up there. So what the hell, man? #;-}>

Hmph. There are much better ways of getting love from the geefox than providing him with tempting bits of pointless stat/NG-related debate/argument, yanno!

Yanno, just because I mentioned geefox in my post, doesn't necessarily mean that the information is only for you.

Nooooo, but debunking what I took to be you saying that a term means or can't mean something or other... the fun of that discussion... is what I was talking about being tempting. And I took the bait! Ahhh, temptation... giving in to you is so much fun. #;-}>

Besides, you and I were the only ones conversing in this topic at the time. :::nods:::

Just ask Bonus. He knows all the secrets about getting love from me. :::nods:::

Yeah, I'll be sure to be another lacky that spams up pages upon pages of one-liners too. Right up there on my to-do list with putting my feet in a lake of lava. :::shakes head furiously:::

hahahahaha. Ever since I mentioned you (and SCD) in connection to Bonus/joobie and spamdom back in relation to the 700 page debacle, you've been overeager to shed any assocation with Bonus, haven't you. #;-}>

Man, talking to you today is like pulling teeth geefox. What's up man? I thought you knew that I was just a little smarter than that. I'm just a few years younger, I got my kollege degree ... somewhere ... *looks around*

Pulling teeth? Ouch. ;_;

Harsh, man. Harsh.

I guess you are just trying to keep me on my toes like a midget in a urinal ;-)

Something like that. :::tips cap:::

A & B Lists (total stat)

Welcome to:

jujmcint

Congrats to:

SevenStar Brigadier General
KWAS71KCK Brigadier General
Denvish Colonel
-Mazza- Major

Special Mention:

15,000 Blams

SevenStar

10,000 Blams

RoweNuts
Kooldawg
CrossofDevil
sunhawk818
deck_head_tottie

C & D Lists (S2B ratio)

Welcome to:

QuikFox
rvyn
Police_Science
teamtash
UNSC

Congrats to:

voodoo212 Staff Sergeant
teamtash Private
IvanTuroc Corporal

Wow look at all the people reaching mile stones. Look like there will be a few new people on the Penta list.
Congratz to SevenStar, RoweNuts, Kooldawg, CrossofDevil, sunhawk818, and deck_head_tottie for rechign some mile stones in blamming.

At 12/4/04 09:46 AM, BonusStage wrote: heh i'm progresing nicely on this list, too bad i'm not even close to top protections still :_<

Yea there's not enough movies to be protected =/ I blammed like 240 movies and protected 30-40 ^_^

At 12/4/04 08:31 AM, D0GMA wrote: 10,000 Blams

Speaking of 10,000 blams well im almost there just 500 more to go woot...

~X~

At 12/4/04 08:31 AM, D0GMA wrote: A & B Lists (total stat)

Welcome to:

jujmcint

Welcome aboard to teh juj'.

At 12/4/04 08:46 AM, ramagi wrote: Wow look at all the people reaching mile stones. Look like there will be a few new people on the Penta list.

Indeed, indeed! Next update will be rich with new additions.

A & B Lists (total stat)

Congrats to:

thisisasignin Supreme Commander
iamnone Major General
Rabindarath Brigadier General
wismty Colonel
QuikFox Lieutenant Colonel
BeFell Lieutenant Colonel

Special Mention:

15,000 Blams

good_guy_o
Qwoxyl

10,000 Blams
AZPunisher
Seraphius

5,000 Blams

Gojucmac

C & D Lists (B2S ratio)

Welcome to:

patman21
Protozoan
Raven-claw
Farmageddon
ConfusedAndDisturbed
djplayboi
Sakurazukamori

Congrats to:

QuikFox Lieutenant Colonel
Farmageddon Private First Class
Nostrant Praporshchik
Sakurazukamori First Lieutenant

Congratz to the crap patrol of good_guy_o, Qwoxyl, AZPunisher, Seraphius, and Gojucmac.

Oh how fun, after passing Crono in blams lookit what we have here.

Total Blams

#7:D0GMA
#8:MPA

Heh, yes I know this is only happening now due to your b/p goals with your alt(s).

A & B Lists (total stat)

Welcome to:

Hermannator

Congrats to:

Nijsse Lieutenant General
good_guy_o Major General
Denvish Brigadier General
Red_X Colonel
BonusStage Colonel

Special Mention:

25,000 Blams

MPA

15,000 Blams

Wylo

10,000 Blams

staphita

5,000 Blams

ThreeStar

C & D Lists (B2S ratio)

Welcome to:

chickenking
adramelech
Maskumax
DjGurk

Congrats to:

SquareHard Corporal
Suicidal-kid Sergeant First Class
IvanTuroc Sergeant