The /newstuff Chronicles #299

[Murdoch]

RjY said:

[citation needed]

Come on you can't make a statement like that without backing it up with a link.

Way to question the integrity of a guy who can ban you, champ.

[Mad Butcher]

Grazza said:

If anyone wants the original files for getsum (someone on the idgames database comments was unhappy about the modified txt), then they can be found at cd.textfiles.com (except that it seems to be down at the moment, hopefully not permanently). It also includes the missing deh file referred to in the txt.

It was reuploaded to the archives with all the original files, plus a converted DEH file.

[Bloodshedder]

JoelMurdoch said:

Way to question the integrity of a guy who can ban you, champ.

I wouldn't ban him for that, but Template:Fact really does annoy the piss out of me.

[RjY]

I merely found it odd that I was not previously aware of something which was described as a three-year-old official policy. Unfortunately it turned out to be stated only in a forum restricted to reviewers - I believe it is relevant to all readers of the chronicles.

However I realise I should have been much more polite, so please accept my apologies.

[deathbringer]

I was waiting all week for those jokewads to be ripped apart!

[GGG]

There is nothing wrong with a jokewad if it is actually funny. Problem is so few are.

[Jodwin]

GGG said:

There is nothing wrong with a jokewad if it is actually funny. Problem is so few are.

No, the problem is that you can't tell whether it's an actually funny jokewad without trying it first, and that different people have different tastes.

...thus, all jokewads should be given even the shortest review.

[GeeDougg]

Could whoever reviews t/nc 300 please review the jokewads from 299?

[GGG]

Jodwin said:

No, the problem is that you can't tell whether it's an actually funny jokewad without trying it first, and that different people have different tastes.

...thus, all jokewads should be given even the shortest review.

From your logic, every wad should be given the shortest review, because you can't tell whether it's a good wad without trying it first, and because people have different tastes.

[Jodwin]

GGG said:

From your logic, every wad should be given the shortest review, because you can't tell whether it's a good wad without trying it first, and because people have different tastes.

Of course they should, shouldn't they? There's really no point in not giving any kind of a review for a wad.

...however, I do consider "shithousing" a wad also as giving a short review, because then you at least mention the wad and tell that it's shit instead of just ignoring it.

[Ty Halderman]

I'm headed to Scotland for 2 weeks so perhaps #300 will have more wads in it. However I won't get a chance to file any new uploads until 10th March at the earliest.

I put a dummy file in incoming with a msg-like-filename that says don't upload until the 10th, but I'm sure everyone will ignore it. Some have already, in fact. However, I'll redate everything to the date I merge them when I get back so they won't expire prematurely.

Sorry I can't do anything about it but access to the archives is IP-based and I'll be on a random hotel wireless sort of thingy while out of the country.

[exp(x)]

There should at least be links to unreviewed wads so that people don't have to regularly check the database to see what is uploaded.

[funduke]

Grazza said:

... then they can be found at cd.textfiles.com (except that it seems to be down at the moment, hopefully not permanently).

It's back online now. :)

Greetings
Funduke