User talk:NotBrandX

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

some mathfag you are[edit]

(moved my discussion with Fatum to Talk:Dice_pool)

re: bitching about 3.5e fags in the 4e article[edit]

Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20#3.5e_is_underpowered_in_the_D.26D_System --Zabasaz

That's the spirit! --NotBrandX

re: making {{fact}} and using it on the 4e article[edit]

(edited down for my enjoyment, and so my talk page doesn't get fuckoff hueg.)

Doom 20:58, 13 May 2010
blah blah what do you MEAN "citation needed" for 4e not getting enough table space at cons in 4e#Criticism? blah blah here's some supporting facts blah more facts see for yourself blah
blah blah you better use {{fact}} on 4e#Benefits now buster
notBrandX 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
blah blah editwars suck blah blah trying to be impartial blah blah
When debates break out, I want to see boxing matches, not slapfights.
Zabasaz May 14, 2010
blah blah prove it and I'll concede, Doom.
Doom
blah blah fuckin' Google it, Z.
Zabasaz
blah blah haters gonna hate blah just deal with it, D
I don't mind the criticisms, despite how poorly organized/big they are, but I don't want people posting fabrications.
Doom 04:46, 15 May 2010
blah OMG you're just embarrassing yourself blah the 4e#Benefits section has lies in it too Z blah list of specific examples
It's all a moot point, of course, as even WoTC appears to be shutting down 4e, going over to an 'Essentials' line and ending 4e products in September or so.
notBrandX 16 May
Yeeesssssss... your hate HAET makes you strong...
Now I wanna find out about this end-of-life rumour for the 4e product.
Zabasaz
Cool cliff notes. Also, I'd like to see about that too, what a shame it would be if WotC did shut it down.
Doom
blah ha ha I look awesome in the Cliff Notes version. blah okie srsly, no more 4e after September, it's all 'Essentials' after that, and they're cancelling the rest of their Blah-Power-"2" books. blah even devs complain it's broken in their blogs.
notBrandX 17 May
blah blah Maybe they're cancelling the Blah-Power-"2" books because they're retards, not because they're killing it? Link to Essentials product, don't look so bad. Link to Rules Compendium product. Link to Product Catalog that has release dates.
Doom
blah blah They're cancelling their Blah-"3" books too, that's beyond being retards. 'Essentials' product is not just a new brand, but new stuff, blah blah 3.5 all over again blah 'Essentials' == D&D 4.5 blah the 4e errata to date is almost as big as the Rules Compendium, WTF?!
Zabasaz 19 May
blah blah Hey, Blah-Power-"2" might still come out. And Monster-Blah-"3" is still coming out. 'Essentials' line is for new customers. There's a lot of empty power/class/race spaces to make a lot of core rulebooks. blah blah I don't like that 'Essentials' means I have to wait, but I like this stuff so I'm willing to wait. blah blah and stop picking on me.
Doom
blah blah stop being so easy to pick on. blah Monster-Blah-"3" hits stores 4 months before the first 'Essentials', so it doesn't count. None of the usual style core/splat/blah rulebooks are on the schedule they're showing us. Maybe 'Essentials will be the 'new & improved 4e', just like 3e and 3.5. Or maybe not. blah blah monthly hardcovers to rehashed softcovers, "this is a big f*cking deal."
Zabasaz 19 May
Well, agree to disagree. :D
Fatum 20 May
> that's a lot of core books
Your mom is a core rulebook.
Doom 25 May
blah blah In case this horse isn't dead yet, no more 4e-branded products after GenCon. blah blah The 4e#Benefits section is just "It's the Z show (guest-starring Z!)" so let's put it in a ghetto.
notBrandX
blah blah flamewars that become personal attacks suck. Z wasn't the dude who started 4e#Benefits.
blah blah big bold message meant to impress you
Doom
blah blah Yes he did. Look it up. Furthermore, j'accuse he isn't sharing the toys. BTW I am not 4e#Criticisms spy.
blah blah big bold message right back at you
notBrandX
blah blah Shit, I'm an idiort; you're right. I made 4e#Fandom, Z made 4e#Benefits and wrote damn near all of it blah blah How about a wishy-washy compromise? blah blah I'm a hippie dippie hurp derp blah
(I didn't actually say that last part, it's just what I sounded like. <embarassed/>)
Doom
Well, I'd like to think it SHOULD be the "what people like" section, the point I poorly made is it should NOT be the special snowflake for Z section. I realize it's all a matter of opinion, and that's the point. Go and read the line he's removing...that's a legit benefit, just not to him, apparently. It's not a backhanded benefit, like a crack about all those useless hardcover books getting rid of problem trees or something. The point buy system is considered a GOOD thing by a vast majority of players (you really can't use random die rolling to create a character in a balanced system like 4e, and VERY FEW, if any, people actually roll dice for chargen in 4e). If I remotely thought that it was fair to flat out remove stuff I didn't agree with, I'd delete some of the pure crap in the criticisms section. I totally hope people take the good things in 4e, fix them so they work, and make a great game. Personally, I have alot of hope for Metamorphosis Alpha, I think the 4e system can be tweaked to make a GREAT MA game, even if alot of 4e doesn't really work in a fantasy RPG game. Heck, I even hope Essentials makes 4e much less clunky...I'm just more optimistic about MA.

Talk:Dungeons_&_Dragons_4th_Edition[edit]

Can you drop in and give your two cents (or hopefully more) in the new section? You've been here from the beginning and quite frankly I appreciate you and your input. Love, --Zabasaz 06:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, we're good. --Zabasaz 23:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Already did so...get a dictionary. --Doom

4e/IsBad - 4e/IsGood[edit]

You know, come to think of it, everything those two pages can bring is yet more bickering like the one we saw over at 4e page. Why would we want that? Fatum 21:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The bickering is going to happen no matter what we do, and it will happen long after the current neckbeard-slapfight has ended. If we give them a play-area of their own they won't homosex the main article, where people are trying to find out what /tg/ has learned about the game (instead of what /tg/ feels about the game). And: and and and, my America includes the burning HAET of a thousand suns, and I want my shit twinkie and eat it too. If we exorcised all the hyperbole, emotional knee-jerk ranting, then people might as well go back to Wikipedia. As Tom Waits said: "If I exorcise my demons, then my angels might leave too." --NotBrandX 02:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for articles to be foam-at-mouth ranting. We're here to describe the opinions typical for /tg/ and common among its denizens, not to advocate those opinions. Fatum 15:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And when those opinions *are* rantings of madmen? I believe by impartial as editors, we can describe these opinions without implicitly defending or supporting them. If we describe /tg/'s opinon on a subject as "it's a shit twinkie," and some neckbeard gets up off his fat ass to write in "NUH-UH! The Sailor Moon RPG is the BESTEST THING EVAR!", are we going to replace the 'shit twinkie' judgement with 'awesomesauce'? Do we give equal space to the fatass to talk about what is good about the SailorMoon RPG? Or do we just yank the 'shittwinkie' judgement and make the article neutral? What if it turns out the original shittwinkie judgement was a lone neckbeard, and most of /tg/ thinks it's awesome? What if it turns out that "most of /tg/" is discovered to be a lone neckbeard samefagging his own threads? As impartial editors, how are we to judge what is "the opinion of a majority of /tg/" when /tg/ is a barbarian horde of Anonymous like any other *chan board?
Here's my proposed solution: Something is more interesting than nothing, thus I believe it's better to encourage people to write content for the wiki. If they're willing to do the work, they deserve to stay, and write things that readers will find interesting. HOWEVER, there are caveats:
  • editwars where other people's content is removed or subverted means you're turning 'something' into 'nothing', so it falls on the 'nothing' side. Thus, editwars suck.
  • adding SO MUCH content of dubious quality that it's difficult to get to the good bits dilutes the 'something', so it's a slippery slope that eventually slides down into the 'nothing' side. This is also called "polluting the article".
When Doom and Z were fighting over the "documented/undocumented" fact about less tables reserved for their favourite edition of Bunnies & Burrows, I said "{{fact}}, bitches!" or, in other words: "stop diluting each other, and give us a 'something' to back up your claim." Someone answered, and I turned it into a wiki article (another 'something'), and some people went "ooh" "ahh" over it. well maybe three people, but that's better than the huge nothing that the editwar produced.
  • adding irrelevant information -- such as talking in the InuYasha RPG article about how the SailorMoon RPG is, like, *so* much better omigawd -- counts as diluting the content of an article. In the latter case, where an author is adding content that is interesting but irrelevant, an editor should transplant the content to a more appropriate other article, like adding the reasons of awesomeness to the SailorMoon RPG article, and dropping the InuYasha RPG comparisons.
  • spambots adding advert links to articles is always 'of dubious quality' & 'irrelevant information', and such content should die in a fire.
  • "what about adding SO MUCH content but it's all relevant?" This is where the 4e#Criticisms falls. If a section of an article starts to outgrow the rest of the article, then it should move out of it's parent's basement and get an article of it's own to live in. Whenever anyone tried to edit the entire 4e article, the wiki software would warn that it was getting FUCKOFF HUEG and the edit <textarea> field would break on some browsers. That's a big hint that the article needs an editor to tighten it up, and maybe export some sections into articles of their own.
That's why I proposed that 4e#Criticisms should move out, get a job and it's own apartment, maybe at 4e/Is_Bad. This was before Doom and Zabasz got into their slapfight and started tearing up the article and arguing with each other on other people's User:Talk pages, and they started calling for a grown-up to intervene, and then a grown-up did and not they way they wanted. (god only knows why they thought *I'm* a grownup, I'm just some math faggot who wrote charts for Dice pool).
--NotBrandX 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me set the record straight, because you guys love to sound all impartial and above and beyond. I called the Admin, not "we." I was the only person who got up, e-mailed / talk page'd the admin, made a discussion page and called witnesses/participants in to comment as the main page says you should, and I stopped editing the page more 48 hours before the admin came in. None of you guys did anything to slow/halt the editwar, I completely took matters into my own hands to alert the admin. So, you can spout about how much we're having 'homosex' and your ideas for content are awesome! But ultimately, it was I who actually got up and did something about the editwar, and now its resolved.
More importantly though, let me emphasize something else: You'll notice I have no edits on Is_Good/Is_Bad; I have no interest in the Skub/Anti-Skub argument. So, when you said "We'll give them their own play area," I could not help but think you're very confused. You seem to have this notion that I want to put the work back on the 4E Page, or that I want to see the Pro-Skub page put up. I don't. My history of edits went from trimming/removing criticisms, to countering outright fabrications, to ultimately just not touching anything except the weird, dubious edits I perceived as vandalism that Doom put in the page, specifically the benefits. Do I look like I was INTERESTED in winning some kind of war? No, I was interested in ENDING a war, and when it was clear we couldn't just have our own things, I figured, well let's bring the admin in. When I called Wikifag, I was 100% sure that we were BOTH going to be admonished, and I even said in the e-mail, we're both edit-warring like bickering kids, please come shut us up.
So go on and discuss how you're going to happily restore the criticisms/benefits section for us to create a nuclear wasteland! Cool story bro! You do that, I'll go happily be entirely uninvolved and know I was the only guy who actually put his foot down and tried to get the editwar stopped. Elite Wiki Contributors - Serious Business. --Zabasaz 19:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Haha, you're so wrong it's hilarious.
First, you're the only one to be vocal about what you report or not report to our wiki admin, and frankly, I don't see how that does you any honour.
Second, if you wanted the editwar stopped, you could have shut the fuck up. That would have stopped the editwar, cause, you know, there'd be nobody to make the controversial edits. You didn't? Wow, nice story about your good intentions, then, chummer.
Third, you mad, bro? Or do you just have a sense of self-importance so swelled it barely fits on this wiki's pages? Fatum 20:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Fatum: As I just said, I hadn't been editing when the admin came. I had actually stopped, and requested compromise/quit the warring. Doom was in an edit war with someone else entirely. Go check the history you'll see what I mean. --Zabasaz 07:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing, chummer. It's not like the "someone else entirely" could easily be you after logging out. But look at me ranting, there's no way you'd do that. Fatum 19:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Z: Jesus, man. For someone who wants to put a stop to drama, you sure are good at stiring up the pot. "Let me set the record straight: I... I... I... I was the only guy..." ... The only person you're trying to benefit by writing that stuff on my User:Talk page is yourself. You could've used those kilobytes writing a Healing Surge article, or charting the changes in Healing Potions through different editions. --NotBrandX 03:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, NotBrandX, you proceed with that whole "indeterminable opinion" argument as if you don't know the most obvious solution, and one we've been using so far at that. And yeah, it's really easy: you see some point made more often than the rest, you write in the article: "The general/most expressed opinion on the subject is X", and if you've seen other opinions stated, you just add: "but some claims that Y have been made", and get a nice unbiased article instead of a shitstorm. That's what 4e article aspired to be until our recent contributors waltzed in, too. Fatum 20:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is whether there's a provable way of saying "X is said more often than Y." Also, I would be sad to see some of the content that was in the Criticism & Benefits section go away. Some of the points made were valid and/or amusing, although it ended up becoming a wall-of-text. People inserting a paragraph of explanation and counter-argument (on BOTH sides of the fence) made the wall-of-text problem worse.
I guess I want my hatecake and eat it too. --NotBrandX 03:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Bah, you just write the opinion you see most often as the generally accepted, if someone disagrees, let him have the burden of proof. Fatum 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah fuck it, I change my mind, you're right, I'll go. And if you want my opinion on this topic: I honestly thought there was no validity nor richness nor good points/content in either section. They were both retarded, boring reads and provided very little. I say fuck 'em, good riddance. --Zabasaz 07:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

>I was chasing you all day to say how I don't care about you Fatum 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh wait. Oh man, I just read that previous version. >Mommy, they are calling me names on the Internets! *reactionimage* Seriously, what are you, 12? Fatum 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well nobody asked you Fatum! --Zabasaz 01:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
> Implying I need to be asked to tell you that you behave like a spoiled child Fatum 17:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you intended me to respond here or on my own page, but glad I came here...now I see how that guy earned his titles. --Bobthemighty

Your List of Contributions[edit]

Why'd you take it down? --Zabasaz 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because this? Fatum 19:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because I just finished telling someone they were being a retard for being all "me! me! me!" on my talk page, and I realized that list on my User page could look like I'm bragging, and someone could accuse me of being a hypocrite saying someone else should humble the fuck down. It's bad enough I'm a namefag already. For it's original use as a list of bookmarks, the special link I left behind will privately bring up my entire watchlist as a list of links, without showing off so many notches on my bedpost. (or rather, so many notches proving that I'm NOT getting laid. *sob*). --NotBrandX

I AM NEW TO COMPUTER[edit]

How do I set up an orphaned page template? Can't seem to figure it out for the life of me. -Zabasaz 13:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand. --NotBrandX 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Orphaned pages are those which are not linked to by any other page and are thus unlikely to be found by a browsing user."
Wait, I can use Special:LonelyPages. Thanks anyways. --Zabasaz 20:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the help earlier. Really appreciated it. My only question I have left is how to make my signature appear automatically with the time and everything? --Havoc

An Urgent Message[edit]

Psst, NotBrandX, I heard you got an RSS of all the edits? Can I take a look for my Sovereign page? I haven't got any other save other than 1d4chan... Thanks for reading. Indonesian gentleman 16:03, 18 September 2011 (BST)

  • Thanks for the databits, at least I can salvage some of it now! Thanks a lot, man! Indonesian gentleman 02:47, 19 September 2011 (BST)

Strike Witches[edit]

Intended it as a joke rather than a threat (fun fact; if I'd intended it as a threat I'd be the one breaking the law for impersonating a Federal agent) but if you don't think it's funny then eh, can't win 'em all. Tim 10:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Periodic Table of Dragons[edit]

Thanks a ton for making that table, it looks fantastic.

  • want to come and play with us on /tg/? So far it's just three of us regulars, at least until our drawfriend stops having to work overtime. HortAnon (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)