Helios 42 - Live and Dangerous

[Freddie]

Editorial by The Black Prince
Political Mudpit by Thanatos
Coliseum by Erwin Rommel
The Curia by Soulghast
The Basement by Freddie
Thema Devia by Rebel6666
Page 3

Helios 42 comes at time of a great loss in my life, the premature death of Michael Jackson struck me fairly hard, I can’t help but think back to the late 80’s and early 90’s when to many kids everywhere he as was the most dominate personality in our life’s. I was fortunate enough to see him perform live in concert at Wembley stadium back in his Black & White tour, yet words alone can’t describe just how much he had the crowd in the palm of hand. He only had to remove his sunglasses to get the crowd into a frenzy. I know it’s clichéd to say but life must go on, and on we go with the Helios starting of with an editorial from The Black Prince who is marking his 33rd article with his piece called ‘Gay Shame’.

Editorial – Queer Concern

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Queer Concern

Gay Shame

First of all, if I have any regular readers who missed my column last edition, I apologise. I had every intention of writing an editorial for Helios 41 alongside the interview I did, and I failed. The interview was prepared long in advance of the deadline and as the deadline approached I found myself so engaged with other matters I just never found the time. It is no excuse and I apologise.

I did a count through my Helios folder on my PC today, and worked out that although this is Helios 42, this is my 33rd Helios article since Tom Paine relaunched the Helios well over a year ago. I think I had a couple of one off appearances in Helios editions before then, but in its current form, I have been a regular contributor for almost every edition since Helios 4. That’s quite some time. Most of those articles I’m proud of and happy with, there’s a couple I’m ashamed or embarrassed about because they are so bad!

In that time, I’ve covered just about every gay issue imaginable. These days, I don’t tend to sit down and think lets right an academic or political article on gay marriage or queer theory, I stick to current events and gay news. I’ve covered everything from the Stonewall Riots to Gay Conservatism, Gay Marriage to Transgendered issues, and I hope my articles have been both interesting and informative.

Alas, writing for so long, and with gay politics being what it is, it is inevitable that some of the same issues come again. This is one of those article. This issue has been done before, but like many issues in the news and the debate forums, it comes up at least once a year. This article is on Gay Pride.

My friends at Five Awesome Gays reminded me last week that June in the USA is national Gay Pride Month. Here in the UK, we don’t really have anything like that. February is LGBT History Month, but Gay Prides span the length of summer, from Birmingham Pride in May all the way through to Manchester Pride at the end of August. I suppose you could say that every summer is gay pride summer in the UK.

Now it wouldn’t be gay pride season without the detractors of pride coming out and complaining about it. Sure, there are plenty of straight people who don’t like pride. Who complain at the existence of gay pride and the lack of say, straight pride. To be perfectly honest, I don’t really care because its not about you, and in many cases, the straight people who hate pride are one of the reasons we need to have pride. The detractors I concern myself with are the gay people who dislike pride, and there are plenty of them. For many years now, Gay Shame has competed with London Pride for attendances and makes certain points.

The people who don’t support pride in the gay community do have a point. The main and original reason behind pride was community solidarity. It was there to show the political establishment that gay people existed and weren’t going to go away or be oppressed any longer, and it was also a way to show to each other that they weren’t the only ones, that there were thousands of us.

But like any celebration or festival, pride can change its meaning over time and has done so. To many of the younger attendees, myself included, we have none of the political activism experience of our older friends. We’ve never faced the riot police, been arrested for our protesting, or had to march on parliament to demand basic rights. We got lucky, compared to 40 years ago. The pride that the older generation remember has little direct relevance to us. But that doesn’t mean that pride is no longer necessary or needed.

I think its key to remember, that even though we have achieved so much, the battles are not all fought and the war is not over. I’ve met gay people who are incredibly apathetic politically, because as far as they are concerned, they have everything they need, legally, and see the remaining activists, however young, as dinosaurs from a bygone era. I’ve always been shocked by this attitude. If the war was won, “gay” wouldn’t be the insult of choice in every school playground around the country, gay ministers wouldn’t be persecuted by their own faith leaders who cannot see that a gay preacher, risking public wroth, is probably the most committed faith leader you’ll come across. Anti-gay humour wouldn’t be shrugged off as fine and the idea of gay men adopting wouldn’t create outrage in every tabloid newspaper... oh, and men and even boys wouldn’t be brutally murdered for being gay.

But we don’t celebrate Pride for ourselves, we remember gay people across the world, where not everyone can celebrate pride. Its wise to remember as we march down the streets what happened in Moscow at Eurovision, or that picture of two teenage boys being hanged in Iran for being gay. Remember the number of countries which carry the death penalty for gay acts and the number of cities and countries you wouldn’t want to go with your boyfriend in case you don’t come back in one piece. How can we stand here complacently saying that pride is irrelevant when in some places the very idea of it will get you killed?

There’s also complacency to consider. Sure, Pride might not have the political relevance that it used. I’m not old enough to remember the experiences of Tim Teeman for example (The Times, Arts and Entertainment Editor) who first marched at 16 on Downing Street chanting “2, 4, 6, 8 is your husband really straight! 3, 5, 7, 9, no don’t worry, neither’s mine” and such other phrases. But in places like the US, gay rights can come and they can go. We have to remind people that we are still here, (still Queer, so give us another beer) and make sure that the hard won victories of the past are not rolled back in the future.

I’ve been to several pride parades, and I can’t see I like everything I see there. Being gay doesn’t mean I have to give a ringing endorsement of every aspect of the queer community and gay culture, I don’t. But I both love and respect the fact that these people are free to be who they are and who they want to be. The whole point is that gay culture is NOT the straight norm, so to a straight person, you’re going to see a hell of a lot that seems strange weird, and yes, wrong and disturbing to you because its not your culture and we don’t subscribe to your cultural norms. Tough cheese really, we live in a diverse society.

But for me, what I like about pride, is the normalcy. Pride isn’t, for me, about the flamboyant costumes, the go-go boys, the young men in skin tight shorts and little else, the drag queens and the scene queens. Pride is about feeling normal for just about the only time in my life.

Walking around Chester with Gaz, I get stares, I get odd looks, I get abuse, I get harassment. In Manchester, because of the size of the gay community, I usually don’t. Seeing a gay couple in Manchester isn’t unusual. But going to pride, I feel like I really fit in, I can walk around with Gaz and know that the only looks we’re getting are from people either checking us out, or being immensely jealous of one or both of us. I don’t mind that at all! We had a party last weekend and most of the guests were gay. Sitting on the patio in the evening sun, my best friend asked Gaz’s straight best friend what it felt like to be in the minority for a change. He just blushed and didn’t really answer… but I know he enjoyed the party but was never entirely comfortable all evening. Out in public, I feel like that all the time, worse in fact, because I don’t just feel uncomfortable, I’m also somewhat scared of the next item of abuse to come my way.

Gay pride is for the normalcy of being gay. But its also a chance to recognise and remember the work of all that has gone before and will go on today. To remember Stonewall and the illegal marches of the past, to never forget what had to be done to achieve the levels of equality we have today. But also to note well and recognise the work done by the many gay orientated charities. The Lesbian and Gay Foundation, the Terrence Higgins Trust, the Lesbian and Gay Switchboard to name but three.

Sure we want normalcy, we want equality, but it doesn’t exist. Until it does, we need Pride, to remind us of what we’re fighting for and to say to the many gay people out there who are not out that they have nothing to be ashamed of and we’re working damn hard to make sure they have nothing to be afraid of. Showing pride doesn’t mean dressing in speedos and a rainbow flag and flouncing through the village, but its taking pride in the fact that if a gay person wants to do that, they can and will always be able to do so.



I learned something new over the weekend by the way. I learned that HM the late Queen Mother was a big supporter of the gay community and that most of her personal staff were gay men. Apparently, whilst at Clarence House, she is said to have bellowed “When you young queens have finished gossiping, this old Queen would like a drink!”. Folklore perhaps, but the fact that so many Royal staff are gay is certainly true. Equally, many gay men are devout monarchists as well. I wonder what the connection might be?

Aden, the Black Prince

the Black Prince one of the most politically driven members we have talking about gay pride.

Moving on from one old stalwart to another, Thanatos puts on his tin hat and bravely digs deep to bring us the latest round from the Mudpit.

Political Mudpit

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ah, you’ve returned. Most excellent. Sit down.

Here, I shall go and ready your test. In the meantime, I shall let you pet Flopsy.

You like Flopsy, don’t you? Of course you do. Just be careful, he sometimes thinks your fingers are carrots, and you end up with more than cute nibbling.

… ok, here we go. This is the first test, the news that Iraqis rejoice as American troops leave the country!

Here’s the news:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – U.S. troops pulled out of Baghdad on Monday, triggering jubilation among hopeful that foreign military occupation is ending six years after the invasion to depose Saddam Hussein. Iraqi soldiers paraded through the streets in their American-made vehicles draped with Iraqi flags and flowers, chanting, dancing and calling the pullout a "victory."
One drove a motorcycle with party streamers on it; another, a Humvee with a garland of plastic roses on the grill.
U.S. troops must pull out of Iraq's urban centers by midnight on Tuesday under a bilateral security pact that also requires all troops to leave the country by 2012.
All had left the capital by Monday afternoon, Major-General in Staff, Abboud Qanbar, head of Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, told Reuters.
Another Iraqi official who would not be named, said some units in cities outside Baghdad would leave at the last minute. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said 30 bases remained to be handed over. There are still some 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Addressing military leaders in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said: "Our sovereignty has started and ... we should move forward to build a modern state and enjoy security which has been achieved."
Many Iraqis were elated even though they feared militants might use the withdrawal as an opportunity to step up attacks.
"The American forces' withdrawal is something awaited by every Iraqi: male, female, young and old. I consider June 30 to be like a wedding," said Ahmed Hameed, 38, near an ice cream bar in Baghdad's upmarket Karrada district.
"This is proof Iraqis are capable of controlling security inside Iraq," added the recent returnee from exile in Egypt.
The government has declared June 30 a national holiday, "National Sovereignty Day."
"BIG JOY"
A spate of bombings in recent days, including two of the deadliest for more than a year that killed 150 people between them, have raised fears militants will try to step up the pace of attacks.
Yet few Iraqis see that as reason for the Americans to stay.
"It is a big joy to see them leaving," said Abu Hassan, 60, a shop owner. "There might be some more attacks because of struggles between the different parties, but Iraqis are controlling security now. It's up to our forces now."
At a ceremony outside central Baghdad's old defense ministry building, the last Baghdad location to be handed over by U.S. forces, a military band played while soldiers and army college students paraded through a square festooned with Iraqi flags.
"Baghdad is safe, Iraq is safe. We are moving to sovereignty in secure steps," Qanbar said at the ceremony, which unusually was not cordoned off, despite the presence of the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Major-General Daniel Bolger.
U.S. troops will remain at two giant bases near Baghdad airport that are defined as non-urban, in case the Iraqis need to draw on their firepower.
"They'll ask us for help whenever they need something but they've got a lot of capability. This is their country. It only makes sense they should secure their own cities," Bolger said.
More than six years of U.S. occupation and the orgy of sectarian violence it unleashed have left most Iraqis feeling ambivalent about U.S. forces.
Many complain their lives have improved little since then, with daily struggles caused by power cuts and water shortages.
"They did a good job getting rid of that tyrant, Saddam, and we thank them for that, but it's really time for them to leave," said Talib Rasheed, 70, sitting outside in one of Baghdad's leafier suburbs. "Maybe they could leave us some electricity?"

Posters were quick to respond:

It will take decades or centuries to really get a clear answer on whether the war was worth it. For the cost of this war, it will be a long time to prove worth.

true, but what i was getting at was whether or not insurgent attacks will increase

Not all were happy, causing an engaged conversation to occur:

The only winners are the Shia and Iran.

Thank you very much America.

I think it's a good thing, but too early. Hopefully I'm wrong.


About the latter of course.

I always hope you are wrong and you often dont disappoint me.

naah,i say they'll return sooner or later...

How the war was won?When during 2006-7 USA lost control of vast territories inside Iraq(including 80% of Baghdad)Shunis faced Shias in a bloody battle on who is going to control all this territory.Shias methodically butchered Shunis leaving them only 25% of Baghdad"wining"the civil war.Afterwards Shunis fed up with the massacres decided to cooperate with US isolated more extreme elements while Shia extremists were defeated in a series of campaigns during the Spring of 2008.Today Violence continuous to claim hundreds of lives every month but the situation is controlable by the government.But bloody events such as suicide bombings and perhaps ethnic and religious fightings will continoue to exist for the years to come

First off, the 'celebration' of US troops leaving, was a military parade...


In the coming months, some will prognosticate on what it was all worth, but it wont mean a hill of beans. Our involvement in Iraq doesn't end for decades.

It has been just over six years. We have had to deal with uncooperative neighbors, looking the other way, and outright supporting insurgencies. Developing, and sharing new IED 'technology', on their behalf. Little support from the world community, to the detriment of the Iraqi people, and our own troops. And yet I still sense that some people don't recognize just how difficult this has been, and that they actually wish Iraq to be a failure, even though the consequences are unimaginable, for everyone.

If you actually sit down and look at this war as a whole, from an educated view point, it is amazing it has gotten to the point, where other places in the world, such as Mexico, are now far more violent than Iraq. Even given the current escalation.


At any point, the world could have put aside its differences, and supported, not the going to war, but the Iraqi people, and US troops. Instead, all we got was political brinkmanship, and it led to the deaths of a lot of people. While I don't hold the previous administration in high regard for putting us in this situation, I hold the Nations of the world, who did nothing but criticize, while people died, in even less regard. And it goes beyond committing troops. They could have helped in any number of ways. Condemnation for Nations that support the wholesale slaughter of Iraqis, is one way. After all, many of these same nations are quick to point the finger when the US is wrong...

If the world had a problem with people dying, understandably so, they should have gotten off the bench, strapped it down, and helped do something about it.

The population turned against the insurgency, which is a deathnail to any insurgency anywhere at anytime. It's just that it usually takes about 20 years longer than it did in this case. But you won't see that on the news.

Actually i am glad that thousands of US soldiers died in that war.Why?US hater?Nop.It is just a sense that this war is going to give some lessons to future US administrations.If you remember correctly since Reagan there was a sense in US(and in the rest of the world)that you can solve all problems militarily. Just remember how many Top-Gun movies appeared during this period.With the death of those soldiers US governments might remember Machiavelli's words "you can start a war whenever you like but you cant stop it whenever you want it".

You might trust US government but i dont.If those gyes overthrowned Saddam and didnt face any problems they would invade Iran(i remember how many analysts were certain that this is going to be done 1 or two years after the fall of Saddam).This means that today US would fought a huge war in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan....

Unfortunately, the topic then turned into a bit of a random smorgasbord, but then we had our trust ol’ senior moderator Pontifex lending a helping hand:

Haikus can be fun
But sometimes they don't make sense.
Refrigerators.

Please get back on topic.

Join in on the conversation now! It’s still going! With any luck, you can contribute in posts consisting of haikus too!

Hmm, you haven’t broken out a sweat yet. Good. On to a more difficult tier, then.

How about learning that Americans dislike socialized health care?

Why, do you ask? Well, people are happy to answer!

because it's a beaureacratic nightmare of an answer to a very real economic problem.

Increases taxes.

Define the system and then I will tear the proposal apart.

Seriously, there are so many proposals floating around that will never see the light of a Congressional hearing -- you need to be more precise in what you are supporting. It also helpd to explain why it is a good proposal as well.

We already have a form of socialized medicine with immediate emergancy care open to all, provisions of the tax code, Veteran's benefits, Medicaid, and Medicare. There are many aspects to a social safety net. The majority of citizens do not wany people to lack for needed medical care due to poverty. this does not mean that any proposal is desired or even helpful to solve the issues of financing such care.

Health Insurance is a bureaucratic nightmare. The US spends mmore than twice as much per person on health care than any other country and is ranked 37th in the world according to the World Health Organization. America is against 'socialized health care' because of the AMA and insurance company lobbyists.

For people who actually work, they get taxed alot more. I don't know about you, but I don't like people in my pockets. The health care is ONLY FREE TO SOME PEOPLE, the others pay for it.

Socialized medicine will result in a huge bureaucracy, intrusion into every aspect of the individual's life, and the government deciding who will live and die. All of this, along with the destruction of the American economy, and the virtual annihilation of the private insurance sector.

However, let’s turn to the other side’s opinion:

The French and Scandinavian systems are the best in the world, whereas the US system is down behind whole bunch of third world countries. Tell me, why should you hold dear dogma instead of taking a pragmatic approach to seeing why those systems are so good and attempt to change it?

Viking the emergency care may be open to all but your be smacked with a huge bill afterwards. Plus if you ever fall down at work and require an ambulance ride expect to pay 2-5k for a couple mile ride. Even if you have insurance you have to pay the private ambulances, that is pathetic. Necessary medical operations should be subsidized by the government.

When i lived in the states, I would be sick very often due to me having bad health when i was young and would have to frequently have to visit the doctors or go to the hospital, but i was lucky since my dad received health insurance. I don't know to what extent it covered or if it was 100% free but i never recalled him complaining about any bills, i should ask him about it.

Too bad Canada's healthcare isn't as good as theirs, although we may have free health care ours is pretty crappy. My mom rather pay in the states to receive good medical help then go to some free clinic and receive crappy health care here.

I'm not an American but I will tell you the real answer:

During the Cold War, Americans have learned to associate the word "social" with "evil".
Anything with the word "socialized" in it will be shot down without even investigating it.

First -- if you are injured at work -- the ambulance is billed to your employer.

The fact that you are billied does not mean that you will ulimately be required to pay. It depends on personal finances, circumstances around the reason the emergancy care wasw provided, and other factors.

If you are financially able to pay, you should pay. Any other system encourages abuse and middleman padding of costs.

Also, I have no idea where you are getting the "2-5k for a couple mile ride".

However, I think one of the best posts that summarized everything up was made by a relatively new poster:

Why do my fellow Americans hate the idea of socialized health care?

A: Most Americans do not hate the idea. The for profit health care industry hates the idea.

Funny how so many people who say negative things about the costs, or the nightmare of socialized health care never have a single ounce of proof, or cite able data. Just the same old arguments / talking points that are created and promoted by the for profit health care system.

Good for you, Master Shake, I doth personally agree.

Hmmm, you are more resilient than I originally thought. Well, you can’t stand the terrible might of…

Thanatos’s Muddiest Thread Award! (Shock, horror, squeals of terror!)


This award goes to the thread that’s the most muddiest at the time of writing, complete with total bias, blatant favoritism, and posters who don’t care that they haven’t changed their underwear in the last ten days!


This edition’s aware goes to… http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=268908] Russia apparently rewriting all of history![/url]
I’m not even going to say anything. I shall just show you snippets from a random pa-


…. And TWC is down. Database error, she wrote.






…. Well! Uh…. Gee. I’ve got to turn this into to Editor Freddie, and I can’t do my work!

Ah well. You can use your imagination!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But your test next time won’t be so easy, Gadget!

Damn 10 days with out a change of underwear……………..I can’t go a day without changing mine but that’s enough about my personal habbits. And BTW the Database error didn’t last that long Thanatos and can’t be used an excuse to hold back but since your one of the most comprehensive reporters the Helios has I’m going to let off.

Next up is Helios newbie Rebel6666 (I take it Rebel666 wasn’t available at the time of application ah?) Thema Devia with his second Thema Devia report. Now I must warn you all those you can’t stand my regular green text, Rebel6666 is an even bigger fan of formatting then me.

Thema Devia

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hi there all of Helios readers. Before I start I would like o say that the Thema Devia part of this forum is a real cool place for a guy like me to make reports. There are all kinds of threads going on various things that are completely out of the ordinary like my first topic:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Beef or Pork Poll?



Beef:


Or Pork:



The question is: Which meat would you choose if you can only eat one?

Wow now that is a title that it’s you in the face… or in the stomach

The Results are: 66 votes for Beef and 28 Votes for Pork.

Here are a couple of quotes that you can find in this thread:

Posted by Justinian

Beeeeeeeeeeef. Beef is just perfect in every delicious way; pork seems too fatty for me.

Fatty? I don’t know Justinian, have you compared the size of those two animals?

Posted by Shadow-X4X

Beef, am too attached to it =)

I wonder what Shadow is doing with his beef to be so attached to it, let’s not get into too much details here

Posted by Helm

Pork you've got ham, bacon, chops, sausages, black pudding.

Beef you've got steaks, burgers and mincemeat.

Do the math.

1 Beef + 2 pork - 2 sausages x 3 slices of bacons??? A I never was good in math, Helm could you help me out here….

Well now the second thread that caught my eye is called

FEAR:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is the opening post:

Posted by Eire_Emerald
It takes a man to admit his fears, and I also know none of you guys outside of this website. So if you consider yourself a man then honestly write down some of your main fears while commenting on everyone else’s. One per post.

I am afraid of the dark. The idea of not knowing fully what surrounds me.

...that didn't feel very manly actually...


Posted by Elmersen

Im afraid of watching horror movies..

Well I though I was the only one… But I can look at some but I can’t go to sleep right after the movie

Posted by Anonym
The experiences I made during growing up made me afraid of people, who confine me to my home; I never go out on week-ends etc.
Establishing new RL contacts is an extremely slow process for me that happen very, very rarely.

To be honest I pity that person, this shouldn’t be fun at all, If I may maybe you should get professional help, to ne able to live a normal life… You can do it don’t go!!

Posted by ASOG 150

I am scared of Jellyfish as well. Whenever I am in the water and I see a jellyfish, I run away screaming like a little girl. It happened to me in Wales when I went surfing, I got in the water and I felt something brush against my leg (It wasn't really a sting, but it did irritate a little bit later), I looked down and there was hundreds of the damn things. I ran back to the shore and wouldn't go back in. I also managed to slip on a dead one that had been washed ashore further up the beach.

I think you did the right thing there my friend playing with those Jellyfish is a only a one way round fun thing and I can assure you that the jellyfish is the one who is having fun.

The Next Thread is called the Sexiest Accent Thread

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is to OP’s post:

Posted by Eire_Emerald

Just pick which one you think is the nicest to hear. Please try not to be biased.

I am gonna go with french, french girls drive me crazy.

Should I be offended by this or not, he is talking about the French girls from Europe or the ones from Canada, I’m French Canadian you know. Hey but wait…. I’m not a girl?? Go ahead Eire talk all you want about girls.

So as of now here are the 3 top ones:

1- French with 7 votes
2- Spanish 4 votes
3- Russian 4 votes

Posted by Manco

Frenchies talking English. Germans talking Dutch. South Afrikaners talking Dutch or English. Irish talking English.


There's more, but those are the ones I've heard most.

Strange though how I find French itself rather ugly, but a French girl talking English will ha me swooning all over her.

I’m not sure what the last part of his sentence meant but I have an idea….

Posted by Visna

French, Spanish and Russian.

Maybe Visna’s right, the 3 of them mixed up could be nice, here is a reply to her post.

Posted by Eggthief replying to Visna

I doubt that a combination of those would sound as good though.

Come on Egg, we all know it’s you first language, don’t be so modest

Posted by Visna replying to Eggthief


You never know...
And I was having trouble picking, but ok, if you want to be strict and detailed about this then Spanish. No, wait, French. On the other hand, Russian is sexy as well. Nah, I think I'll stick with Spanish. Or French. Or maybe Russian. Not sure. There! I'm happy we managed to clear that up.

Visna you make my head spine in all the ways possible Lol..

The Official: "Things you do nobody knew about until now" Thread

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So everyone has some strange habits, let me start first:

- I love to sit on my hands.

Huh!!!

- After a good party I always continue the party in the shower.

That is normal for a guy that never had a girlfriend

- I never had a girlfriend

At that point and If I were you now my friend I would suggest you pay for getting laid!!!

- I never put my IPod on while biking, instead, I sing for myself.

What??? He’s signing on is bike but not in the rain, now you are really weird

- I prefer to stand while eating rather than sit

That’s your choice but I can assure you that it’s not too comfortable

- I take my t-shirt of when going to the toilet.

Why do you do that, what is related between your t-shirt and your toilet, did they get divorced??? Do not answer I don’t want to know.

- I just don't like to be around some 'friends', some are total weirdoes.

And you are what?? If they are weirdoes

- I change the way Im sleeping every day, first the correct way, then the other way around etc.

What the hell?? You really have nothing to do mate

- I judge people by their voices.

Lol… We don’t need to judge you by your voices just here on your first post we knew exactly what you are. Come on man you need help

IMO I know that you didn’t or don’t do any of the things you mentioned you were just looking for attention………. Good for you cause it worked

Posted by Octy
Threadshit.

You have to like the sense of humour of this guy!!!

Posted by Eire_Emerald


Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey I of Leuven
-I am 5'9"
-My great-great-great

I'm taller than you!

Posted by Shyam

Take a dump in the shower and bathe in my toilet

Posted by ARU

-I pick my nose and leave the contents in the trash can.
-I used to play tetris while on the toilet. The game's broken now, and no where to buy it
-I always bite my lips and cheeks on the inner side of the mouth.
-If there are some kinds of lines on the concrete on the street, I'm always careful not to step on the lines. Never understood why.
-When driving in a car I always prefer to sit in the back seat, on the middle, to see between the front seats. And I hold my knees against (on) the front seats. Great for traffic accidents when you hit someone with the front of your car, proven, specially because I don't wear seat belt when sitting in the back. And also it's more confortable then any other place in a car.
-In public toilets I can't pee if someone else is in the room, no matter if I'm separated just by the wood or the wall.
-I always drink either one ore more then three beers, I get headache from two.
- I also wear "headset when I'm working on my pc. Whether music is playing or not".

Ok enough spamming non-sense

Teenager Kimberley Vlaminck has 56 stars tattooed on face after 'falling asleep'

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is her story:

This is the sight teenager Kimberley Vlaminck woke up to after falling asleep in a tattooist's chair - despite claiming she only asked for three stars.

The 18-year-old, who is now suing the body artist for £8,500, said: "I can't go out on the street. I am so embarrassed. I look horrible."

Kimberley says she nodded off during the lengthy and painful procedure and awoke to "the nightmare" of 56 stars across her face.

But tattoo artist Rouslan Toumaniantz denies her allegations. He says she only complained after her father "threw a fit" and her boyfriend threatened to dump her.

Kimberley, of Courtrai in Belgium, claimed the Romanian tattooist had failed to under-stanher French and English. She said: "I explicitly said in my native tongue, French, and also in a little bit of English when he looked confused, that I wanted three little stars only near my left eye."

But Mr Toumaniantz said he knew exactly what she wanted. He added: "She was awake and looked into the mirror several times as the procedure was taking place.

"The trouble all started when she went home and her father and boyfriend threw a fit. They are saying things now like I doped her or hypnotised her. What rubbish. She asked for 56 stars and that's what she got."

Kimberley has launched the civil action, seeking money for tattoo removal surgery.

Posted by Xomiak


Ha ha ha! That's her fault. Shouldn't have slept in the tattoo pallor

!

Lol… Agree with you on this one I don’t understand how sometimes people can be stupid, have no common-sense. Now she will be stuck with that for the rest of her life

Posted by Red Knight

Wow, good luck trying to find a decent job with that on your face.

If she applies at the “Cirque du Soleil” maybe he could have a job but she will need to stay awake and have some hidden talent

Posted by Field Marshall

What a moron. Her story is unbelievable. There is no way she fell asleep while a guy tattooed 56 stars. And most if not all Tattoo artists, draw it first on something else and show it to the client before actually tattooing it. No tattoo artist is going to tattoo someone who gives a vague description, so i am sure she said what she wanted and got what she wanted.

Now I wouldn't like to be her, this will follow her for the rest of her life, then if this story is true that is.

Anyways that is all for my report of the Helios 42.So see ya next time and take care of yourselves, à la prochaine fois et prenez soins de vous.

Regards
Rebel6666

Now just looking at Vbulltin code this guys reports looks scary, I would hate to think what the HTML looks like, it would probably give even Sim sleepless nights. Another fine report from the heart of Quebec Canada, and as for Beef vs Pork…………You can’t beat a nice piece of beef when it’s cooked right (left a bit pink) but pork is more flexible and makes for great bar snacks!

It’s time now to get a bit technical with my coverage from the Basement. Now in last months report I mentioned about new hardware coming, sadly AMD are having issues with it’s new fabrication process which has caused delays getting new products to market. I just hope we see some DX11 cards by the autumn, I’m on tender hooks just waiting to upgrade my PC this year.

The Basement

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Since CA’s recently released patch for Empire which now enables multiple core scaling I can’t stop myself from thinking about upgrading my PC latter this year. Typically I’ll completely upgrade my PC every 3 years with a video card upgrade every 18 months, last time I didn’t bother to replace my Case (an AcoustiCase C6607, this was state of the art back in 2003 and set me back a fair few bob). Now my case is 6 years old and I love it to bits but it’s time to get something new, something like the up and coming Lian Li Armoursuit PC-50. A good case other then looking nice will help with airflow which is important to keep your components cool thus reducing the risk of parts breaking. Now in the Basement I will looking at Hard Drive failures (scary), graphic errors, high end video cards and I'll be looking at how to check your PC is compatible with a game.





Just take a look at that picture. In the words of Mythbuster Adam Savage "there's your problem." Now in all likely hood your hard will never get bad unless you used it for target pactice however Hard drive are mechanical device with moving parts and as such will break at some point just ask Pickle_Mole.

Okay so i was going to replace the video card in my brothers computer that is a "
HP Pavilion M8120N(GC674AAR) Core 2 Quad Q6600(2.40GHz) 3GB DDR2 640GB"

we also replaced the power supply (ive done these things many times)

Now when we turned the computer on the fan on the power supply started ticking, so we turned it off, took it out and found out a twist tie got stuck in it. we took it out and put it back and then the comp wouldnt turn on and the fans would only start for a second then stop, so we went back to the power supply unplugged everything and plugged one thing in at a time to see if it would turn on. Come to find out the hard drive, once plugged in would stop the computer from turning on. So i assumed that it was fried (it got wiped the last time i put a card in, f'n HD ) so after some thought we thought we could take an external HD and take off its casing and plug it in and using that as a temp for a while. whel we got it plugged in and the thing turned on! we got to the HP moboard screen and then put in the 64bit vista disk to install it, then it says disk boot failure. Now can i not use the external? or do i have to go into the bios (im a newb in there) and get it to recognise it or do i have to buy a regular HD at the store?
im lost

Poor guy, Rjfc replied and had a similar experience.

I had this problem before. My internal HD had failed and was causing a ticking noise and was causing the computer to stall. There was nothing I could, the HD had simply failed, so I called Dell and they sent out a replacement.

One of the benefits of buying of box shifters like Dell, there warranty is on site and they will come to your house to fix your PC if it goes wrong.

As time past he grew desperate.

Freddie come out here now!

so i need to slaughter a calf on the alter of the computer gods? i will, i swear it....

A few calf's latter..................

It's been a while since I last had a complete hard drive failure but the noise you describe does sound like your hard drive has failed.

As for plugging your external drive and using as an internal dirve.................are you reffering to an external hard drive or optical disc drive? I've never heard of anyone trying to install and boot Windows on to a USB hard drive before.

external hard drive, once you take the molding off and the usb thing it looks identical to an internal, i think the only caveat is they have a slow rotation speed but other than that i would assume it would be fine, at least i hope

The problem is Vista's installation .exe is looking for a SATA or IDE hard disc it won't be looking for USB device. You can install Vista onto a USB hard drive but it's very involved and you already have to be running an OS in order to do it.

If your a gamer then at some point you will have most likely have come across a the phenomenon that has plagued 3D video cards since there introduction onto the market called artifacting. Artifacting can be caused by either hardware failure or software failure, recent problems with the Geofrce 8XXX line of cards have been caused by the fan not spinning fast enough to draw out all the heat which can cause artifacting. Former Helios writer VOP2288 looks to have the same issue.

Ok - so I got a new computer a few days ago and I went from a rig that was mid/low end to fairly high end...

My problem is this:

1. The Witcher - I can now run the game on max settings with no lag but the graphics appear...out of focus almost...gritty...with horizontal lines vaguely appearing during close ups and cutscenes.

2. ArmA2 - sort of the same thing really but the graphics are set to Normal/High and I'm getting that same gritty and out of focus/too much bloom effect/blurry almost result.

Any ideas on what's causing this and how to fix it?

Also, if it makes any difference this does NOT happen with other contemporary titles I own that are set to high settings (i.e. Empire Total War, Wolverine, etc)

It's really odd he should be experiencing problems so early on with a new computer.

It may be possibly that your GPU is damaged, even though some games appear to run fine.

My last ATi card ran the same way, some games worked while some games artifacted.

Ok, so some google searching has turned up some interesting results...as far as The Witcher is concerned, it seems as though this is a true to life problem with the game rather than my PC. It seems as though at 1680x1050 resolution is what causes it. The problem supposedly has been recognized by the makers but has yet to be fixed or mentioned in over a year or so.

I tried taking screen shots of ArmAII but all I'm getting is a black rectangle when I copy the print screen result.

That last sentence gives us big clue as to what the issue is here.

A black regtangle.......then card is artifacting. What video card are you running BTW?

Yes, and black rectangle...but if I print screen command with the Witcher or anything else it works.

I'm running a NVIDIA 9800 GT

Now to fix the problem (if it's mechanical) he should download Rivatuner, now Rivatuner will allow him to set the fan on the video card to what ever speed he wishes. By setting it high it can cure problems caused by heat build up as sometimes the video cards PWM fan doesn't always set it high enough.



I'm sure we would all love to have one of these in our PC's, the Radeon HD 4870X2 and GTX295 are currently the fastest video cards on the market today and can play just about every game at max at 2600x1600. Lycan wants to know which card he should choose.

OK so i'm building a computer. So far i got all the pieces except that i can't make up my mind whether to go with ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 or the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295. Can someone help me chose? i ca't make my mind, they both seem good and seem to be very close in power to each other. I saved up my money to build my gaming PC but ths part is taking so long to chose. Which do you guys think i should go with?

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2

GTX 295 is better, but more expensive than the 4870x2. It's up to you whether that extra 10 fps is worth the $500 price tag when a 4870x2 can go for easily go for $400.

Another thing, what's wrong with this Sapphire 4870x2? It's $100 cheaper than the one you listed, along with a $10 MIR and free shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102768

Also, is your mobo going to have SLI or Crossfire support? Because, it might be cheaper, and probably even better, to SLI or Crossfire a GTX 275 or a 4890.

You dont realy need to crossfire or sli those cards.. No game can use the power.

The thread kind of goes off topic rather quickly and end up being a discussion about high performance hardware and it's cost. However the people that posted all back the GTX295. Now I guess if money isn't an option the GTX295 is the way to go but on price/performance the HD 4870X2 is head and shoulders above the ludicrously expensive GTX295.

Umm, I know this is a stupid question and probably a ton of you know it but, I just need help figuring out if this game I'm wanting to buy will work on my computer.

It says recommended requirements are..

Microsoft? Windows? XP SP2/ Vista | Dual Core CPU 2.0GHz or equivalent | 2GB RAM | NVIDIA? 6800 with 256MB RAM / ATI Radeon? x800 with 256MB or higher | 15GB hard disk space | DVD-ROM drive | DirectX? 9.0c (6/2008 update) | Sound device | Broadband Internet connection

That. How do I check if my computer has...all that stuff?

Hit the windows key + r then type in dxdiag, that will tell you everything you need to know.

The thread quickly turns to speculation as to what game the chap is trying to play.

Is it Crysis?.... That won't run on anyone's PC.


(Ok, it runs on a lot of gaming rigs, but we can never be satisfied. )

Yeah, its Crysis I think, does it run badly?

D.B Cooper has a helpful suggestion.

Try sites like CanYouRunIt if you want a rough estimate. Not perfect, but it's a ballpark estimate.

Now if you ever need to find out more information about your computer such as what brand of motherboard it uses, what video card you have, how fast your CPU is etc then I recommend downloading these helpful utilities

CPUZ - This will tell you all about your CPU and motherboard
GPUZ - This will explain just like CPUZ what type of video card your running.

It's very important that you make sure you can run a game on your PC before you buy as you won't be able to get the game refunded if it doesn't play.

That's all for this show, stay tuned for next months edition.

Freddie

Some of the posts we get in the Basement I often find the spelling is way off due to the some of the words being fairly technical. I wonder if it’s right to correct the spelling when quoting a message or should it be left in its raw state?

Now then after a brief hiatus from Helios 41 Erwin Rommel goes on the attack and unleashes a full on blitzkrieg coverage of the Coliseum. I wouldn’t get in his way!

Coliseum

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Anyway highlights of the Coliseum. Courtesy of Shambhala for bringing this up.

Banned because it is.

Banned for quitting Star Wars Total War.

You sir are banned indfinately because I never did quit Star Wars Total War.

Banned for not quitting Star Wars Total War.

Banned for rumored to be immortal trait.

Banned for having a custom user profile design, that could cause epilepsy in some users.

Banned for being kicked out of Star Wars: Total War, rather than quitting, an altogether more shameful and ****ing hilarious event.

In advance: banned for trying to come up with a witty comeback and failing.

Banned because it wasn't as shameful as listening to drabble on.

LOL

A) What on earth does "drabble on" mean, and how is it done

B) I've already banned you for your awful, awful comeback, so

C) Lol again.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=249427



And now to this thread.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...73#post5327273

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Next one

Thanks for moving it forward, I almost forgot this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://media.photobucket.com/image/j...oker-obama.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Edit-sorry thats so small...hope it works with the poster thingy.

Be sure to check out this sub forums as well.
Alliances Gateway
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=639
Role-Playing Game Gateway
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=775
Mafia
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=463
La Cosa Nostra: The Mafia RPG
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1081
Interactive History
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1135

Is there any end to this guys talents? Master general and a gifted reporter? No wonder Churchill have this man his props.

From the Coliseum we travel the TWC’s own houses of parliament the Curia brought to you by Soulghast who has taken time out from his role of Curator to fill us all in what’s been happing and what new laws have been past which will effect every member here. Take it way Soulghast.

Continues………..

[Freddie]

The Curia

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Welcome to our monthly Curial Report, dear Helios readers! Summer is upon us, and the Curia has continued functioning like it always has. Two CdeC Elections along with the numerous proposals and ideas that were discussed and voted upon will be our focus.

Election News

Two Curial elections were held in the month of June, both of them for the Consilium de Civitate.

A CdeC Application Thread and its respective debate thread were opened. There was a relatively high amount of interest, as 10 people applied for 5 CdeC seats. They were, in order of application: Carl Von Döbeln, Justinian, Fortinbras, Xavier Dragnesi, Tzar, Muizer, Captain Blackadder, Celsius, y2day and Sqυιd. It's always good to see a large number of people applying for Curial Positions.

Some of the posts in the Debate Thread were exceptionally long and detailed, with the entire debate thread totalling more than 50 posts. It also had its fair share of humour but that was greatly reduced when The Sundance Kid's posts had to be deleted after it was discovered that he was ineligible to run for the position.

The debate's more important(or rather, long-winded) posts were the following:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What's your point of view regarding candidates' privacy and how do you justify it?

I don't think the privacy of candidates should be compromised. I will only discuss candidates in the CdeC. That would also be the answer to anyone enquiring about candidates.

1) What course of action would you take if a fellow CDeC councillor continually made derogatory remarks about a patron or candidate?

That would be a regrettable state of affairs. If I had such strong personal feelings about either I would consider it a conflict of interests and abstain on those grounds. On the other hand, I do not think a CdeC member should be swayed by such remarks coming from a fellow councillor. I don't think the CdeC should allow itself to be sidetracked from its purpose into Votes of no Confidence and other internal debates. If it is, there's probably more wrong with it than the one member slandering a patron or candidate.

2) What is your position on AAR authors? Are they contributing to the site or not?

That's a really strange question, Calvin. I don't see why one would categorically include or exclude AAR authors. In the end it is about the content.

3) Would you describe yourself as elititst?

No. I'd say I'm in favour of a meritocracy, but perhaps more against the aristocracy. To that end I support egalitarian reforms (because they are preferable over aristocracy), but should I get elected, you can expect me to be more than averagely critical of candidate citizens. For instance, I won't pass anyone because "I do not see why not" or because they "show promise" or because I don't want to be a spoilsport for patron or candidate. Basically a candidate has to be able to point to a body of work that has reached the community in a definitive form.

Do you think CdeC members need a badge?

No.

1) Do you feel the patron is important in assessing the merits of a candidate for Citizenship?

Yes, but only in cases where the nomination relies on the patron's testimony. The case of a mod team member patronizing a fellow team member has been mentioned.

2) When the power of the people has been vested in you, how and in what ways will you flaunt it?

I'm fairly austere when it comes to such things. I will add it to my signature, in fine print. Not to flaunt it, but to make sure those who communicate with me know about it and can take it into account should they think it necessary to do so.

3) Do you wear a pin with the flag of TWC on it? Do you even know what the TWC flag is? Huh, do you?

Nope.

4) On a scale of 99% to 100%, how often will you wholeheartedly agree with my assessment of a candidate?

Somewhere around 99.25%. As I said to Calvin, I'm quite critical

5) Do you believe that there should be stigma for certain types of contribution, such as local moderation, skinning, AARs, or what have you, which makes it predisposed to being considered a contribution or not a contribution? Or do you think each contribution needs to be viewed in and of itself without any underlying indicator?

There is the question of whether a contribution is appropriate for TWC and its audience. The range of activities here is wide, but not unlimited.

When voting on promoting someone to Artifex, how far would you go in judging a contribution to the modding side of things? Would you download the mod a person has worked on, would you go by the word of the patron, or would you look at the reaction of members of the forum to the candidates work?

If the modder in question is part of a team, I would ask the patron to supply a testimony from the team's leader. It is often difficult otherwise to assess the work a modder put into a team effort. If the mod is a solo effort, I would download it have a look at the modified files. I'd rely on the reactions of the audience to assess the effect of the modification on gameplay.

When promoting a Civitate, which is more important, the general attitude shown in the candidates posts, or the actual content of the posts? Would you discriminate against voting in a Civitate because of the stance they take on certain issues? How can you be sure you won't be biased in such circumstnaces (including positive bias)?

I'm in perpetual doubt about many issues, so I don't look for people to confirm an pre-existing opinions I hold. That said, I'm not going to respond well to posts which are clearly of a doctrinal nature, regardless of how well the poster is
educated in their use.

In a case is borderline, if there are arguments for and agaisnt giving someone the citizenship, and it is very difficuly to come to a decision, would err on the side of caution and vote no, give the person the benefit of the doubt and vote yes, or abstain from voting?

I would vote against. As I said before, if the citizenship is to be a meritocratic institution candidates have to be well above average. I know this isn't applied generally, but it is the only justification I can think of to place some members before others.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how much do you like the French? (1 being complete contempt, 10 being orgasm)
This is imperative to finding out how well you will fit in the chat rooms.

Not in the context of the CdeC. I don't plan to discuss CdeC matters in chat rooms.

Question to all candidates.

How much time will you spend on researching an applicant and how will you conduct this research?

Variable. It could be over in minutes or it could take an hour. IMHO the paragraph and patrons intro are of little use. Instead I start out in the candidate's profile and track their activities from there (posts, threads started). In case of modders one has I will consider the testimony of players and fellow team-members on the public forums or request the patron to provide letters of recommendation. I won't actually play any mods for this purpose alone. That would be overkill.

My one question here;
If you see a candidate has already had many views posted on him by other CdeC members, would you just go off their views or would you carry on looking into things yourself?

No. I would not check the opinions of others before I had a chance to form an opinion of my own. I might check them afterwards to see if I did not completely miss something

Why do you want to become a CdeC member?

I'm not at all certain I want to be a CdeC member. It's been a long time since I was last on the CdeC. I will perform the CdeC duties, but above all I want to find out how the CdeC is running these days.

1) What course of action would you take if a fellow CDeC councillor continually made derogatory remarks about a patron or candidate?

2) What is your position on AAR authors? Are they contributing to the site or not?

3) Would you describe yourself as elititst?

1) Firstly, I would attempt to speak with the councilor, and say that there are more professional ways to express discontent towards a candidate and his contributions and that the Site's Terms of Service is still in effect even in the Consilium de Civitates fora. If the councilor rejects the complaint and proceeds to post more derogatory remarks, I would contact the Curator, expressing my objections towards the behavior of the councilor. Hopefully after being contacted by the Curator the councilor will alter his behavior. However, I would hesitate to make my case public, for I fear that taking the case public may upset the stability of the CdeC and divert it from its duties. Therefore, I would only initiate a Vote of No Confidence if there are other nasty attributes, such as prolonged inactivity, that could be accompanied with the derogatory remarks.

2) I am not an AARtist, but have always admired the work of some of the most skilled AARtists. Take for example this AAR stored in the Scriptorium, a massive amount of time and effort was invested into composing this after-action report. Thus, I would most definitely view composing AARs as a contribution, depending on the content of the AAR. However, if one can only tout AAR-writing as a contribution, I may be inclined to vote no if no other redeeming qualities are discovered.

3) No. I would say I would be more middle-ground while judging a new citizen, though. Citizenship is an award for sufficient contributions towards the betterment of the site, and as such it should not be handed out freely like candy. But I do recognize that sometimes Citizenship can spur greater commitment towards the site, since it provides a link to the site that withstands the average lifespan of a regular member. But generally, I will not vote yes on a member simply because they show promise, I'd say potential is something that could possibly tip me over if the candidate already boasts an impressive rack of contributions.

What's your point of view regarding candidates' privacy and how do you justify it? In a scale from 1 to 10, where do you think the privacy should be maintained? (for example, 1: we make announcements for every candidate, 10:we deny we have read his application)

I would be fine with summarizing the reasons a candidate was denied exclusively to the candidate and his respective patron, but not to any other third party. I feel that if a candidate learns the reasons for being voted down, he can strive harder to perfect his rough edges and master new skills to fulfill what the councilors suggest. Just notifying the candidate that he failed without a reason is, in my opinion, quite rude, and as such I believe everyone is entitled to learn the details of their own case. That said, if any third party contacted me inquiring about the case of another member, I would not release any information and perhaps berate them for attempting to pry into the private affairs of others. So my rating would be around five or six.

Recently, the privacy of the behind-CdeC-doors-discussions about the candidates emerged (again).

What's your point of view regarding candidates' privacy and how do you justify it? In a scale from 1 to 10, where do you think the privacy should be maintained? (for example, 1: we make announcements for every candidate, 10:we deny we have read his application)

Well, as the proposer of that bill my stance should be pretty obvious. I think there is a reason that when the Transparency decision passed, the CdeC voted down the decisions to make failed Citizenship votes and disciplinary action cases public. Clearly the Curia respects the privacy of its members and prospective members, and as such it is also the CdeC's responsibility to respect the Curia's decision and ensure the privacy of the members who come before the CdeC, no matter what they come before it for. As such I'd give it about an 8 on that scale. The only person I'm willing to disclose information to is the person who is directly involved with it.

1) What course of action would you take if a fellow CDeC councillor continually made derogatory remarks about a patron or candidate?

2) What is your position on AAR authors? Are they contributing to the site or not?

1) I would first approach them privately and remind them of their duties as a CdeC councillor and their responsibility to remain impartial and up to the standard we hold prospective clients. Clearly it is unacceptable for CdeC councilors not to maintain the standard we hold members to, and to break the Terms of Service that the CdeC is part of enforcing. I would also immediately bring their actions to the attention of the Curator. If after this conversation the councilor did not stop, and continued unapologetically, I would consult another CdeC member to make sure I was not misinterpreting statements and then propose a Vote of No Confidence, which is what I believe is necessary.

2) Writing AARs is certainly a contribution to the site, as it provides material for new members to read and old members to stick around to read as well. They are an important part of the site, but I do not consider writing AARs on their own to be enough to warrant Citizenship, and my reasoning for this is simple: writing AARs tells you nothing about the attitude of the member who writes them. They could have a very bad attitude and end up flaming members and losing their Citizenship rank if you grant it to them, or they could be very nice and a perfect Citizen -- it is impossible to tell, based on AARs alone.

3) When it comes to accepting new members as citizens, would you say your standards are high and tough, middle ground or low? Please expand on your answer we can see in what way they are high, middle or low.

My standards are high and tough, in my opinion. I think Citizenship is an honor that requires contribution and hard work to attain, and this is a standard that traces back to when I first became a Citizen in 2006. I failed my first attempt to gain Citizenship and I had to work much harder and focus on posting well and contributing to the site in order to get the rank. I think anyone who takes it seriously (but not too seriously, I think) and puts in the contribution can attain the rank. I expect contributions in either the Artifex or Civitate categories and they should be contributions that anyone can see.

Do you think CdeC members need a badge?

Need no, but I think they should have one.

1) Do you feel the patron is important in assessing the merits of a candidate for Citizenship?

2) When the power of the people has been vested in you, how and in what ways will you flaunt it?

3) Do you wear a pin with the flag of TWC on it? Do you even know what the TWC flag is? Huh, do you?

4) On a scale of 99% to 100%, how often will you wholeheartedly agree with my assessment of a candidate?

5) Do you believe that there should be stigma for certain types of contribution, such as local moderation, skinning, AARs, or what have you, which makes it predisposed to being considered a contribution or not a contribution? Or do you think each contribution needs to be viewed in and of itself without any underlying indicator?

1) Yes, its not a deal breaker, but if a mod leader patronizes someone that has created a well developed submod for his mod, then I take that into consideration. Again it is not a deal breaker either way as I always judge a member on their own, it is just one more factor in my decision.

2) I had planned to strip and run through the streets yelling "Y Wins Y Wins!!", but now you have ruined my surprise so I will keep my "member of the CdeC" in my signature and thats about it.

3) No, I have it tattooed on my arse

4) Considering you are one of the smartest, and best judges of character that I have ever met, in real life or on the internet I would say 99% of the time, because unlike you I am never wrong.

5) In a perfect world any contribution should be viewed in its own light, but we are human. I know what it takes to skin a unit, and what it's like to in my case to try to write an AAR. I like reading other members post in a contributors thread and get a feel of the communities reaction. It really gives you a feel for the significants of the contribution. This is harder if not impossible to do on some contributions such as being a local mod. With a local mod I usually look at the topic of forum, the traffic, if competitions are run and the general tone of the forum if I can. Sometimes it is a worthy contribution and sometimes not. I try to judge each contribution to the best of my ability on its own merits.

y

What's your point of view regarding candidates' privacy and how do you justify it?

The privacy of a member in terms of their infraction history should remain private, as should their identity if the candidate fails their citizenship vote. As with patient/doctor and client/lawyer confidentiality does not apply to what the CdeC members says and isn't there to protect the CdeC members.


In a scale from 1 to 10, where do you think the privacy should be maintained?

10, the constitution is very clear on the issue and only the identities of those who have passed are to be revealed. The only thing about a failed application that can be published is that an application was received and it didn't succeed.

What course of action would you take if a fellow CDeC councillor continually made derogatory remarks about a patron or candidate?

If I felt it was appropriate I would start a VonC on the councillor.

What is your position on AAR authors? Are they contributing to the site or not?

AAR are a contribution to the site, and their AAR should be examined to determine if they are sufficient for a person to become a Citizen.

When it comes to accepting new members as citizens, would you say your standards are high and tough, middle ground or low? Please expand on your answer we can see in what way they are high, middle or low.

I would say my standards are high, top notch contributions are needed for a person to become a Citizen.

Do you think CdeC members need a badge?

Need, no, would it be nice sure why not. I honestly don't care either way since even if there was a badge I couldn't display it.

Do you feel the patron is important in assessing the merits of a candidate for Citizenship?

No, the messanger is not important in determining the worth of the message.

Do you believe that there should be stigma for certain types of contribution, such as local moderation, skinning, AARs, or what have you, which makes it predisposed to being considered a contribution or not a contribution? Or do you think each contribution needs to be viewed in and of itself without any underlying indicator?

Local moderation is the only item you have listed I would not consider sufficient on its own to be enough to grant someone citizenship. Aside from that each type of contribution can be enough to warrant citizenship, if the quality of the contribution is sufficient. No type of contribution is inherently of higher quality than any other.

1) Do you feel the patron is important in assessing the merits of a candidate for Citizenship?

No. I think that all clients should be judged based solely on their own merits; an exception would be when a mod team leader patronizes a mod team member, because that leader has the best viewpoint of how to judge that member and his support means a lot about them. Still, the reputation of the patron should not make a difference.

2) When the power of the people has been vested in you, how and in what ways will you flaunt it?

I will continue to show that I'm uber awesome in my signature, and I will remind people of my station at every possible opportunity. For example:
"Hey Justinian!"
"Hey Member! I'm on the CdeC."
"That's nice..."
"Isn't it? Being a CdeC member is so nice. I get to vote on stuff, and make decisions. Did I mention I'm a member of the CdeC?"
"Uh, yeah..."
"CDEC!!!!"

3) Do you wear a pin with the flag of TWC on it? Do you even know what the TWC flag is? Huh, do you?

I made the TWC flag.

4) On a scale of 99% to 100%, how often will you wholeheartedly agree with my assessment of a candidate?

100%, except when I don't agree.

5) Do you believe that there should be stigma for certain types of contribution, such as local moderation, skinning, AARs, or what have you, which makes it predisposed to being considered a contribution or not a contribution? Or do you think each contribution needs to be viewed in and of itself without any underlying indicator?

I don't think anyone should be making a list of what counts as a contribution and what doesn't -- everything is shades of grey. As I said before, AARs on their own aren't enough 'contribution' in my opinion, but this isn't because of what AARs are, only because of how they help (or don't help) you to judge a candidate. There are always differences -- one member could write a very good AAR and one could write a very bad one, and clearly they shouldn't be considered to be the same level of contribution.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how much do you like the French? (1 being complete contempt, 10 being orgasm)

The more pertinent question is not how much do I like the French, but how much do the French like me.

When voting on promoting someone to Artifex, how far would you go in judging a contribution to the modding side of things? Would you download the mod a person has worked on, would you go by the word of the patron, or would you look at the reaction of members of the forum to the candidates work?

All of the above if possible. Although I can not download every mod, but I do have some good friends that download most mods. Obviously the patron has seen something of the members work and thinks it is worthy of the title. Reaction from the community is a good place to start looking as they really are the judge of what is a true contribution. Also if I do contact someone to inquire about a mod, i never mention the modder. Since I'm a modder myself I can usually tell the time and commitment it takes to produce a modding contribution.

When promoting a Civitate, which is more important, the general attitude shown in the candidates posts, or the actual content of the posts? Would you discriminate against voting in a Civitate because of the stance they take on certain issues? How can you be sure you won't be biased in such circumstnaces (including positive bias)?

Both. I think a rude civitate is not acceptable. They are suppose to be the best posters on TWC. Now if their is no content then it really doesn't matter how respectful or nice someone is. It isn't easy to separate yourself from deep rooted beliefs but you must try. If that isn't possible then you must abstain.

In a case is borderline, if there are arguments for and agaisnt giving someone the citizenship, and it is very difficuly to come to a decision, would err on the side of caution and vote no, give the person the benefit of the doubt and vote yes, or abstain from voting?

The only time I would abstain is if I felt my judgment was clouded by personnel feelings. Recently a friend of mine was patronized and I was going to abstain but I didn't. I objectively looked at his contributions and concluded that even if I had never talked to him I would have voted yes so I did. We are voted into the position to make decisions, so should we abstain on the tuff cases? We can't shriek from our responsibilities. It is our job to remove the doubt. If that is not possible then I would vote no, but offer encouragement to the member to return once his contributions can be better substantiated.

y

When voting on promoting someone to Artifex, how far would you go in judging a contribution to the modding side of things? Would you download the mod a person has worked on, would you go by the word of the patron, or would you look at the reaction of members of the forum to the candidates work?

I would look through the mod forums and read the feedback threads, as well as looking through screenshots and other mod content. If it particularly caught my eye, I'd download it. I would take the patron's word into consideration if he's on the mod team.

When promoting a Civitate, which is more important, the general attitude shown in the candidates posts, or the actual content of the posts? Would you discriminate against voting in a Civitate because of the stance they take on certain issues? How can you be sure you won't be biased in such circumstnaces (including positive bias)?

There is a certain level of politeness that is expected (a track record of repeated warnings would be a big black mark on a prospective citizen's record), and the attitude of a person shows you how they will progress, but the actual content of their posts is the most important thing. I'm not, in my opinion, judging whether or not someone is nice -- only whether they are a good poster, have a positive attitude, and abide by the rules. I would absolutely never discriminate based on viewpoints and if someone I violently disagreed with to the point I think it would effect my viewpoint was put up for Citizen, I would have to abstain. As for bias, I think I have the ability to judge posts on their own merit and not based on my personal feelings towards them.

In a case is borderline, if there are arguments for and agaisnt giving someone the citizenship, and it is very difficuly to come to a decision, would err on the side of caution and vote no, give the person the benefit of the doubt and vote yes, or abstain from voting?

I would vote no. Firstly, I never abstain out of indecision -- abstention for me is only when I have a personal reason for not feeling like my judgment is 100% unbiased on a candidate. The reason I would vote no is because if I'm not sure whether or not a candidate deserves citizenship, they probably don't. It should take impressive contributions.

How much time will you spend on researching an applicant and how will you conduct this research?

My first general method is to click on an applicant and search through their posts looking for good posts and getting a sense of their posting style, ability, and character. I'd also check their moderation record, though this is a benefit I receive as a moderator and not as a CdeC member. I also look for contributions they may have made; if they're an Artifex I'd check out the mod, or if they mentioned Scriptorium or article writing contributions I'd look to see what they wrote.

Form a sentence with the following words:

pretzel, bully, Pink Gandalf, awesome, Eowyn, bunga, stupo, farting gift, laboratory, United Nations of Middle Earth, dance off, Faramir, total war, powerwalk, high five, manufactured outrage, Nuclear Orcs, paprika, dragon yawn, MILF

The United Nations of Middle Earth gathered to discuss the awesome case of Eowyn the MILF and the Nuclear Orcs. Pink Gandalf decided after a lengthy powerwalk around the pretzel-shaped tower that the only logical way to solve the issue was to have a danceoff between Faramir and the Nuclear Orcs, with the loser being doused in a mixture of paprika, sewage and the nightmares of a thousand babies in Pink Gandalf's laboratory, a mixture known colloquially as "dragon yawn". Everyone agreed this was a brilliant idea and there were high fives all around, except the confusingly named Bunga Stupo, from the land of Star Wars, who feigned manufactured outrage and argue that the only way to solve the issue was, in fact, total war. The UNME disagreed and kicked him out, and the furious Bunga Stupo left them with a farting gift that they all agreed smelled worse than "dragon yawn" and decided to douse the loser of the danceoff in that instead.

The Nuclear Orcs were the unanimous victors of the danceoff when they exploded, killing everyone.

If you see a candidate has already had many views posted on him by other CdeC members, would you just go off their views or would you carry on looking into things yourself?

As much as I respect and trust my fellow CdeC members, I certainly couldn't trust my vote based solely on theirs. That's not what my job is.

When voting on promoting someone to Artifex, how far would you go in judging a contribution to the modding side of things? Would you download the mod a person has worked on, would you go by the word of the patron, or would you look at the reaction of members of the forum to the candidates work?

We do have to remember though that inditing modifications is not the only contribution that can be recognized of an Artifex. Advising and helping the modders that make modifications and assisting substantially in the Workshop while maintaining a nice, friendly attitude can also warrant ascension to the rank of Artifex. Anyway, if a candidate being examined lists a completed modification as a contribution, I would be sure to take a peek at the features of the modification and see how revolutionary to Total War modding it may be, the overall reception of the modification and the download statistics for the modification (if available).

When promoting a Civitate, which is more important, the general attitude shown in the candidates posts, or the actual content of the posts?

Both are equally important. In fact, the two form quite a harmonious relationship. One cannot possibly declare himself a good debater if he cannot present his argument (id est, content) in a mature, respectable fashion. Likewise, one may be polite and mature but may not necessarily compose outstanding posts worthy of citizenship. Therefore, I expect a good debater to possess an appropriate combination of both qualities.

Would you discriminate against voting in a Civitate because of the stance they take on certain issues? How can you be sure you won't be biased in such circumstnaces (including positive bias)?

I would not. In fact, I might actually be greatly impressed if a candidate from an opposing point of view were to present their argument in a logical, generally understandable fashion. If there were ever a time where I felt I could not judge the candidate impartially for whatever reason, which I sincerely hope will never be the case, I would abstain. Voting no just for the sake of it or because I disapprove of the candidate's mental posture would be, in my opinion, an abuse of power, because I would be using my privileges to belittle someone else.

In a case is borderline, if there are arguments for and agaisnt giving someone the citizenship, and it is very difficuly to come to a decision, would err on the side of caution and vote no, give the person the benefit of the doubt and vote yes, or abstain from voting?

I would, in most cases, vote no. If a candidate is truly deserving of rank, he should, in my opinion, cause an immediate and strongly positive response and receive very few if any no votes. If a sufficient number of arguments can be brought against the candidate, enough to render his case borderline, then perhaps that's a hint the candidate has not contributed enough to earn the rank.

Question to all candidates.

How much time will you spend on researching an applicant and how will you conduct this research?

The amount of time I would spend conducting research depends entirely on the candidate, and as such I cannot definitively list how lengthy my research shall be. I would research a candidate by scouting their recent posts and infractions (if provided) for those who seek a Citizen/Civitates badge, and by the process I described above for those who seek Artifex, in order to admeasure the quality of the candidate.

My one question here;

If you see a candidate has already had many views posted on him by other CdeC members, would you just go off their views or would you carry on looking into things yourself?

I would only formulate my opinion when I feel I have conducted an appropriate amount of research on a candidate.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how much do you like the French? (1 being complete contempt, 10 being orgasm)

This is imperative to finding out how well you will fit in the chat rooms.

I'd have to say somewhere around 6. I respect French history, especially Napoleon. I think their language is interesting, but somewhat complicated due to all its accents and stuff. Their food tastes great mostly, but they have some weird stuff, and I don't like the prospect of escargot. Their overall character is likable, but is a little snobbish.

When voting on promoting someone to Artifex, how far would you go in judging a contribution to the modding side of things? Would you download the mod a person has worked on, would you go by the word of the patron, or would you look at the reaction of members of the forum to the candidates work?

Since I am quite limited in terms of downloading, if the person's work was not of an extremely large size, then I would download it to try it out. I would look into the areas in which he has made most contributions, and make my own judgements on whether they are worthy of promotion. I would not fully trust the words of the patron, because he would be trying to show his client in the best light to get him promoted. And as for the reaction of members, they can be biased depending on a variety of factions, but I shall assess the general attitude to his work.

When promoting a Civitate, which is more important, the general attitude shown in the candidates posts, or the actual content of the posts? Would you discriminate against voting in a Civitate because of the stance they take on certain issues? How can you be sure you won't be biased in such circumstnaces (including positive bias)?

I would look more at the content of the posts. General attitude can be biased due to the views of other members towards the discussion, as well as dislike/like towards the person him/herself. For me, a person can have any view he likes, as well as he backs it up with relevant proof and evidence that is well founded. I won't be looking at his views, but rather how he expresses and supports them. I will not say I am totally unbiased, but will try my best not to make the subject of the discussion influence my decision, but rather the strength of the argument.

In a case is borderline, if there are arguments for and agaisnt giving someone the citizenship, and it is very difficuly to come to a decision, would err on the side of caution and vote no, give the person the benefit of the doubt and vote yes, or abstain from voting?

i will try my best not to abstain in a vote. I find abstaining rather pointless, because in the end, it does not contribute much to the final decision. If I am absolutely stuck, then I shall abstain. However, on most occasions, if the arguments on both sides are fierce and both rather strong, I will attempt to ignore the words of my fellow councillors and adopt a policy of independency, and vote either yes or no as my own uninfluenced judgements thinks right.

Form a sentence with the following words:

pretzel, bully, Pink Gandalf, awesome, Eowyn, bunga, stupo, farting gift, laboratory, United Nations of Middle Earth, dance off, Faramir, total war, powerwalk, high five, manufactured outrage, Nuclear Orcs, paprika, dragon yawn, MILF

I shall not even try. A sentence for me would be impossible, however, a paragraph may work. Some words I am unfamiliar with though, specifically "MILF, bunga and stupo".

Question to all candidates.

How much time will you spend on researching an applicant and how will you conduct this research?

I will spend all the time that I have researching a new applicant. Most of the time, I will vote near the end of the voting time, when my judgement would be best. I shall look into what work he does, what work he has done, how his work has affected the parts of TWC where he is 'based', how his attitude has been to other members, his behaviour and the public's response to him. Not necessarily in that order, but those are the main things I will make my decision upon. But it will depend somewhat upon whether he is applying for Artifex or Civitate.

My one question here;

If you see a candidate has already had many views posted on him by other CdeC members, would you just go off their views or would you carry on looking into things yourself?

Definitely look on myself. Though my fellow councillors views may influence me somewhat, I shall strive to make my own judgement which are not greatly swayed by the views of others.

The Election took place shortly afterwards, with Justinian, y2day and Sqυιd getting the 3 full terms, and Xavier Dragnesi along with Captain Blackadder going to a runoff for the 4th and 5th places, of which Xavier Dragnesi garnered the most votes and got the 4th CdeC Seat. Captain Blackadder got the 5th one, which was almost immediately up for election.

Another application thread opened soon after the previous election's conclusion. Less people expressed an interest in running for the 3 vacant seats, and we ended up with 6 applicants. They were the following: Carl Von Döbeln, Яome kb8, Astaroth, Celsius, Shyam and Captain Blackadder.

The Debate Thread that followed was considerably less eventful than the previous one, but still had its share of moments:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seeing how the current vote for CdeC badge is 50% either way what do you guys think? Should CdeC members have a badge or not?

I think they should have a badge and also supported the bill.

1. In a Citizen application, how many links to quality posts from someone who frequents the D & D should an applicant include in his foreward (ball park figure)?

Including many links to good posts makes it easier for the CdeC members to judge a candidate. However, quality is more important than quantity and the councilors will read through a potential Citizen's posts anyway. Therefore, the amount of provided links wouldn't really affect my decision.

2. In an attack on an Imperial Artificial Planetoid (the use of "Death Star" according to our survey was bad for pilot morale), would you attack with BTL Y-Wings first supported by X-Wings navigating along a narrow artificial canyon to get into a somewhat confusing firing position which made the pilots fire proton torpedos to hit a target which is almost perperdicular to the axis of attack. OR would you attack with both X-Wings and Y-Wings attacking in a direction which is directly above the target so proton torpedos could be fired straight at the target along the direction of attack without having to make a right angle turn and so be considered a "miracle shot"? You fire 50 proton torpedos at the exhaust port from all your fighters in a short space of time from directly above the target, one's gotta hit right?

It would be hard to fly towards the... space station in the exact right angle to actually hit the exhaust port. Therefore we have no choice but to go with option number one, Sir.

What would be your "acceptable loss" for this fighter force? If 30 go out?

No loss is acceptable! We shall try to avoid casualties to the best of our abilities.

Also, it has come to my attention that no frontline Rebel pilots are black, is this a coincidence or blatant Rebel racism (we found after the introduction of Stormtrooper armour, racism was almost elimanated due to one trooper not knowing the race of another, especially if the coloured trooper spoke properly)

Pure coincidence, the Alliance to Restore the Republic is known as a multicultural entity and would never discriminate against anyone.

Finally, in such an attack, as a rebel commander, would you seize all available civillian ships to help in the attack, especially if the planet your family and friends on might be destroyed? Or would you let a ship that made the Kessler run in less than 12 parsecs leave?

Civilians should be evacuated, there is no point in sacrificing them by attacking a space station of that magnitude.

Thanks

You're welcome.

Ok, there's been none Cdec debate thread I've missed to ask something, so let's keep that tradition going:

1. Almost none (or very very few) of the Councillors answers the newbie questions in Q&A about what one needs to become a citizen. Do you think it's your responsibily/obligation to answer? If not, why? And if yes, do you intend to do so? Would you urge your fellow councillors to participate in the discussions there?

I wouldn;t consider it my responsibility or duty, no, since there are plenty of members to do that already and it usually only requires a quick link to the relevant page which anyone can do, it's hardly necessary for CdeC to monopolise or lay claim to that task. I rarely visit the q&s anyway, although if I do see it, I would be glad to explain the process. Many many people PM me about it and am always happy to answer. I think anyway, if Ignored anyone let me know!

Do you pay attention to candidates' rep points?

Not at all.

What about their attidute towards other members?

In my opinion, irrelevant. I like mavericks. And rebels. They spice up the Curia and bring a unique perspective. I do however grow weary of people who are unnecessarily aggressive and abusive. Although I think I'd be a hypocrite in that department. I am known to be quite aggressive and abusive at times.

2. Before you vote, how much weight do you give to the councillors that have already posted their thoughts?

Only when it is a modder, as I have limited knowledge of modding. Otherwise I take no consideration at all. I often vote against my fellow councillors.

3. Are my questions too many for one post?

Ok, there's been none Cdec debate thread I've missed to ask something, so let's keep that tradition going:

1. Almost none (or very very few) of the Councillors answers the newbie questions in Q&A about what one needs to become a citizen. Do you think it's your responsibily/obligation to answer? If not, why? And if yes, do you intend to do so? Would you urge your fellow councillors to participate in the discussions there?

I always try to help others and to answer questions in the Q&S, no matter whether they are about the CdeC or anything else. So yes, I'd do my best to answer questions regarding citizenship or patronization there.

I don't think it would be anyone's obligation to post there, though. Most questions will be answered quickly anyway and there are plenty of members who are willing to explain the process.

Do you pay attention to candidates' rep points?

No.

What about their attidute towards other members?

I think it's important to obey the rules and to treat other members with respect. Therefore, a good attitude is definitely a plus.

2. Before you vote, how much weight do you give to the councillors that have already posted their thoughts?

If my fellow councilors raised valid points I would of course take them into account. However, I'd form my own opinion and wouldn't be afraid to argue against others if necessary.

3. Are my questions too many for one post?

No worries.

Captain Blackadder, Яome kb8 and Astaroth easily won the election and got 3 full terms.


Prothalamos News and General Curial Coverage

A proposal that was purely for fun, led to quite controversial events, and me needing to exercise my moderation privileges over the Curia. Though it failed its vote, it managed to trigger quite a bit of whining including a thread on Curial Moderation discussion and various other proposals.

Other than that, and a handful of Novus Nominations that gathered Curial support, another hot point of interest was the CdeC Badge Decision, which was initially passed. The Hex Council subsequently decided not to implement it on the following grounds:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hex Decision Implementation Denial

The Hex Council has decided after a debate to not implement this decision on the following grounds:

• The site already has a number of badges, the purpose of which is making identification easier, in order for members to know who to contact for their business on TWC. However, CdeC is a body whose members have no need to be easily identified by the average member; if anything, CdeC membership should be less advertised than the other ranks, due to the nature of the body's function.

• CdeC members who have served for two terms or more already get a medal to recognize their effort.

• Having yet another badge will create even more confusion, especially given the fact that only one can be displayed at a time, barring moderator/administrator badges. This means that members of CdeC that are also members of Staff will not be recognisable as such.

The Hex Council

The Curial reaction was for the most part quite negative, but some interesting discussion managed to come out of it, and eventually a new rank visibility system was introduced which in turn defeated one of The Hex Council's rationales for not implementing the decision. After further Hex discussion, the badges were finally implemented, much to the joy of certain members:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

CdeC is a body whose members have no need to be easily identified

Anyone can easily identify them, their name appears stickied in the Curia. If someone wants he can easily find out who are the Councillors. It is 2-clicks easy.

CdeC members who have served for two terms or more already get a medal to recognize their effort.

A non-sequitur. It is awarded for past contribution, whereas a badge is held for present office. Two different things, just like in the case of moderators - badge for present office, mace for past service.

Having yet another badge will create even more confusion, especially given the fact that only one can be displayed at a time,

This is actually not true, first, it wouldn't create confusion (it would only make things clear), secondly, you can display two badges at a time.

I don't find those reasons valid, but I understand that a veto is a veto - no need to justify it.

Badges for everything else but the CdeC contributors. Have never understand why it didn't pass in the Curia the first few times and now Hex veto's once it does. Very strange the happenings on this site sometimes..... If you can't have a badge for a position (an elected position) then get rid of all of them. Where is the big Veto Stamp? Stamp them all Hex. Makes perfect since. That way we don't have to worry about the NUMBER OF BADGES and anyone recognizing any one else. Seeing how one more badge will tip the scale on the confusion meter, i say get rid of them all.


y

The veto does beg the question whether we are dealing with a singling out of the CdeC badge or a wider policy shift concerning badges in general. The wording of the veto to suggests the former, the reasoning the latter. And yes, the reasoning could be applied to some of the existing badges as well.

A terrible move from Hex and one I cant believe Garbarsardar would allow! Hex veto is for staff and site matters not such cosmetic matters. The reasons give were laughable and this whole veto is laughable!

Let's just start by putting things into perspective. Some of the comments suggest that Hex is being over bearing and ruling with a rod of iron, almost akin to the Guardian Council (I like that term, as it happens - I might make that a suggestion!). Yet how often has the veto been employed? How often has Hex meddled in the Curia? How often has Hex, despite it's judgment, gone ahead with a vote only to see it fail in practice...

Now let's look at what reasons were given -

1) It's confusing -
Too right it is. The overall policy has been geared towards having badges as reflecting Staff positions and medals for achievements. The CDC does form a vital role but for citizens only. They can help and advise beyond that, of course, but their remit is for the Citizenry and the Citizenry alone. Indeed, it could be argued that they are the Guardian Council.

Staff interact with both Citizens and non Citizens alike. The latter might not care or even be aware of the structure of the site and someone having CDC thingamjig on it is not going to help matters.

This does beg the question of the badge for citizen, but that's so ingrained into the psyche of the site I would be loathe for it to be changed. A perk of the job, so to speak.

2) There is already recognition. Perhaps it needs to be more but this isn't the way to go about it.

3) Umm... Subsumed into point 1.

Anyway, I don't think Hex has been unreasonable here. I most certainly don't think that this warrants the level of angst it is getting. For the average membership, that someone is a Citizen is enough. For the Citizens, if they cannot find out who is on the CDC then, frankly, they need to consider how to improve their research skills.

It is a disrespect, I feel disrespected that the people who convinced me to support moderator elections when I was Pro Curator are vetoing cosmetic things today. I feel disrespected that I resigned my Administrator position way back when to give it to people I honestly and truly believed would not act like Ogres.net and then two years on see Hexagon acting like Sulla. Whats most disrespectful is that as far as I know not all the Hexagon members posted reasons for their opposition and hid behind the "Hex Veto".

As for sound reason, Ian there is no sound reason behind this because the same arguments were brought up when Divus came out and when Artifex/Opifex came out and every time the argument of "confusion" was beaten. However, let us not go into this now, I will give us ample time to discuss this matter very soon.

On the grounds of Legitimacy, it depends on your interpretation of the word as here the meaning given to it, besides the christian one is one where one acts "in accordance with the laws of reasoning and logic". This is another issue I would ask you give me time to expand on soon.

Also, Ian you have an individual badge given only to you, so Hex gives you a badge but not the CdC. You deserve the badge and I support any honour you gain for the tremendous work you did for TWC but dont you think its funny how you get one for being Ian and CdC don't?

It is a disrespect, I feel disrespected that the people who convinced me to support moderator elections when I was Pro Curator are vetoing cosmetic things today. I feel disrespected that I resigned my Administrator position way back when to give it to people I honestly and truly believed would not act like Ogres.net and then two years on see Hexagon acting like Sulla. Whats most disrespectful is that as far as I know not all the Hexagon members posted reasons for their opposition and hid behind the "Hex Veto".

I hardly think this is on the scale of the situations you mentioned. Not even close. It is no disrespect. To disrespect would be to simply ignore it all and carry on without a word.

As for sound reason, Ian there is no sound reason behind this because the same arguments were brought up when Divus came out and when Artifex/Opifex came out and every time the argument of "confusion" was beaten. However, let us not go into this now, I will give us ample time to discuss this matter very soon.

And none of them are now badges.

On the grounds of Legitimacy, it depends on your interpretation of the word as here the meaning given to it, besides the christian one is one where one acts "in accordance with the laws of reasoning and logic". This is another issue I would ask you give me time to expand on soon.

It is legitimate because they have the power to do so AND they have a sound reasoning.

Also, Ian you have an individual badge given only to you, so Hex gives you a badge but not the CdC. You deserve the badge and I support any honour you gain for the tremendous work you did for TWC but dont you think its funny how you get one for being Ian and CdC don't?

As you say. I have removed my badge. I don't want to cause confusion, do I.

You realize that if this passes, it will remove the badge anyways right???

Its not included in that list, and forgive me if we dont want to go changing badges around every time someone in the Curia farts.

I think the reason of it being impractical since often times a majority of CdeC members hold Staff or content badges of some sort makes good sense.

That's actually a terrible reason. But if it's based on the fact that CdeC members also hold staff ranks, then that would just be plain silly. For one, moderators are forced to wear their badges, so we can factor them out of the discussion because new badges or no new badges don't affect them one way or another. As to the other staff ranks, no one is obligated to wear any badges at all, not even the people who may need to be contacted most. So basing it on the fact that people might display it over their staff rank is an affront to logic, as we have no control over nor should we what people feel their most relevant position to display, if at all, is.

There's always this lovely laid out page to reconcile any confusion about who is who. It should also be noted that the position of Councilors was enough to merit inclusion on that page which has to be checked when a group is created(not sure why it was checked for Uni Grads, that seems to be the only standout group), the purpose of which is to provide that same referential awareness.

I got no qualms with the veto, I do however disagree on most points. The notion that a CdeC badge precludes one from a staff badge is a flawed one, because I serve in both tech and content and my tech badge stops me from wearing content. The same is applied to others, such as Pontifex who can't show he is Chief Librarian. Badges aren't withheld on the grounds that they may stop another badge from being displayed, this is dutifully displayed in our current badges. Similarly the point about medals has little to no bearing on the issue at hand, and should not have been included. The first reason provided by Hex is the only really valid one, but of course one is enough.

The fact is this is an institution older then any member of hexagon

Really, now? I've never been an elected CdC member, but I've voted on an awful lot of Citizens. Some you might have heard of, like imb39 (abstain), Trajan (abstain), Seneca (yes), Mimirswell (abstain), Honor&Glory (abstain), Fabolous (yes), Tom Paine (yes), Justinian (yes), and The Bavarian Noble (yes). That's just the Hex members, of course.

Since you seem to have forgotten, the CdC dates back to only May 2006. It was only an elected body since June 2006. I've been a staff member since May 2005, and a Hexagon member since . . . looks like December 2005 or so, it's annoying to tell with Archer's moving threads around.

If hexagon want to veto something then they do what we used to do when we vetoed things and actually constructively argue in the thread, its a matter of respect.

We have presented our arguments. I haven't really seen any counterarguments beyond "I disagree", so not much to respond to.

Just because they have access to Admin CP does not mean that the work they do is any better then the work done by any other group of this site and for one group of TWC workers to not allow another group a basic privileged awarded to all other groups is rather disrespectful.

If you're implying that administrators' work is no more important than CdC members' work, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

I'm not talking out of my arse here, the most demanding job I ever had was Head Of Content, with was vastly more time consuming then a member of hexagon.

Jobs are as demanding as you make them. We've had Hex members who put it almost no time at all, and Hex members who put in obscene amounts of time. If we're going to compare the overall value of people's past contributions to the site, I will tentatively suggest that you lose to me on that one.

I challenge any member of hexagon to an open debate concerning how badges confuse members, I challenge them to have the discussion that should have been had in the thread. If this was an issue that they felt so strongly about I am sure that they will find the time.

Honestly, I don't see much to discuss. If you think vetoes must be backed up by rock-solid evidence . . . well, you're mistaken. We have our opinion as the Curia has its. According to the Constitution, the Curia's opinion is entirely non-binding. It has no ability to dictate actions, only make suggestions. We gave the Curia's decision due consideration, and have respectfully declined to implement it at this time. The fact that we've historically let things like this go through without comment does not mean we are bound to always do so.

To briefly address a few specific points. First, Muizer astutely wonders whether this is part of a wider policy shift on badges. I do think that more than one Hex member is dissatisfied with the way that the Curia handles badges and awards. It tends to create ever more and more of them, and often gives them out based on vague criteria that end up amounting to uninformed popularity contests. Activities that are really essential to the site seem to be rewarded less than things that popular and active Curia members happen to do. This isn't a huge deal, since badges don't mean much, and so mostly we've gone along with what the Curia asks regardless. But most of us don't like the situation much.

Second, yes, the level of existing badges is confusing. Ideally we'd get rid of some existing ones, as the Curia did with Senatorii, Divus, Opifex, and Phalera. In the best possible world, we could have everyone displaying all their badges all the time, but that would require some coding that I've never gotten around to (e.g., allowing badges for combined tech+content or whatever). But for the time being, we can at least avoid worsening the problem.

Third, the veto didn't clearly spell out why CdC members don't need to be recognizable, so let me explain that part. Although CdC membership is public knowledge in theory, few people know who's on the CdC offhand. If it was clear who was on the CdC on every post they made, prospective Citizens might easily go out of their way to try getting on their good side. Since many members already think the CdC operates by cronyism, this would not be helpful. On the other hand, it's very rare that anyone actually needs to quickly know who the CdC members are, especially with the new forum setup. You only need to privately contact one of them if you want to refer a member for disciplinary proceedings, as far as I can recall, which almost no Citizens and even fewer members have ever done.

So the badge's only real value (IMO) would be to show respect for CdC members. But really, someone who's a CdC member now doesn't deserve more respect than someone who used to be a CdC member. Medals are better suited to the purpose of giving respect ― and in fact CdC members already have a medal. Appropriately, the medal only awards those who have served for a while, just like the staff medals. So in addition to the problem of ever more confusion from more badges, and a negative attitude toward the Curia making ever more awards and badges based on popularity contests, most of us didn't see this badge serving any useful purpose anyway.

Really, now? I've never been an elected CdC member, but I've voted on an awful lot of Citizens. Some you might have heard of, like imb39 (abstain), Trajan (abstain), Seneca (yes), Mimirswell (abstain), Honor&Glory (abstain), Fabolous (yes), Tom Paine (yes), Justinian (yes), and The Bavarian Noble (yes). That's just the Hex members, of course.

Since you seem to have forgotten, the CdC dates back to only May 2006. It was only an elected body since June 2006. I've been a staff member since May 2005, and a Hexagon member since . . . looks like December 2005 or so, it's annoying to tell with Archer's moving threads around.

I think there was some confusion, The CdC is not older then you, nor is it older then me or Garbarsardar. Either you or me were in Hex when it was proposed by WBK. The Curia is the institution that is older then any member of hexagon.

You say

We have presented our arguments. I haven't really seen any counterarguments beyond "I disagree", so not much to respond to.

Then say

If you think vetoes must be backed up by rock-solid evidence . . . well, you're mistaken. We have our opinion as the Curia has its.

So basically your saying that no matter how many arguments we could have posted it would have had no influence on Hexagon. We do understand that the Curia voice was non binding but that agreement was made on the basis Hexagon made it policy to actually listen to the voices of the members. The non binding was to be used in matters of site and forum security like if i proposed something that would have cost Garb money. It was not seen to be something that Hexagon would use on cosmetic subjective superficial issues which some members of hex have said to me should be put in the hands of the curia. I do not dispute you have the authority to use it, which is why I bring forward the matter of respect and not authority.

On the issue of the Veto, though I was not present in the discussion, I read it. I've seen how you work and debate on the forums long enough to know you are not a person who is swayed by anything less then a solid evidence based argument. Its an admirable quality but one that not only you hold. Personally if I post something like a proposal and you are going to shoot it down I would expect more then a one liner saying "it confuses members" and actual evidence saying "look such and such has happened in the past and we think that its a bad idea, here are examples of why". Similarly if you were to put in alot of effort into say, a forum restructure and the other members of hexagon say "no" with no solid reasons I am sure you would not like the fact that your partners did not give you the respect of feedback. I will not presume to know you but as a hard worker I'm sure you'd want your efforts appreciated.

Second, yes, the level of existing badges is confusing.

Sim, in my 4ish years here this has come up many times and never has anyone ever provided evidence. The most i ever got in i dont know how many months as Hex was 3PM's. I'll even try and dig them up for you.


On the issue of CDC, they work and are entitled to a badge just as much as content editors, Ian, Technical staff, moderators, tribunes, magistrates etc. If the others get a badge then its poor form to veto the CdC.

Since many members already think the CdC operates by cronyism,

Since when is Policy decided by rumor that has never been proven?

So the badge's only real value (IMO) would be to show respect for CdC members. But really, someone who's a CdC member now doesn't deserve more respect than someone who used to be a CdC member.

I agree, once their term expires they loose the badge. Like the others.

Citizens might easily go out of their way to try getting on their good side

and the same doesnt apply to Tribunes? Yet they have a badge.

So in addition to the problem of ever more confusion from more badges, and a negative attitude toward the Curia making ever more awards and badges based on popularity contests, most of us didn't see this badge serving any useful purpose anyway.

You meant the three members who flood the Q&S or Staff?

Second, yes, the level of existing badges is confusing. Ideally we'd get rid of some existing ones, as the Curia did with Senatorii, Divus, Opifex, and Phalera. In the best possible world, we could have everyone displaying all their badges all the time, but that would require some coding that I've never gotten around to (e.g., allowing badges for combined tech+content or whatever). But for the time being, we can at least avoid worsening the problem.

The Curia did not get rid of the Senatorii badge, it got rid of the rank altogether, which is an entirely different thing. Also, I'd like to remind you that the Divus, Opifex and Phalera badges were abolished by Hex, not the Curia. And how are badges confusing? And to who? New members? Well, obviously, but most members who stick around a bit eventually understand which badge means what and there is no issue at all. I don't recall seeing people complain about being confused by the number of badges. And even if there were some, that alleged confusion is not reason enough to start getting rid of badges.

Third, the veto didn't clearly spell out why CdC members don't need to be recognizable, so let me explain that part. Although CdC membership is public knowledge in theory, few people know who's on the CdC offhand.

The badges were going to address the problem of the general membership not knowing who is on the CdeC and what the CdeC actually is.

If it was clear who was on the CdC on every post they made, prospective Citizens might easily go out of their way to try getting on their good side.

That could be said for the Senior Moderators, the Tribunes and Magistrates as well. Not a good enough reason to deny a badge. Plus, people who are looking to suck up will find a way to see who the CdeC Members are irregardless of a badge.

Since many members already think the CdC operates by cronyism, this would not be helpful.

People who are rejected feel bitter. The same happens with the moderator selection process. If some members feel that the CdeC is operating by cronyism that's their problem, but I doubt that a convincing majority does, as I have rarely seen complaints go public.

On the other hand, it's very rare that anyone actually needs to quickly know who the CdC members are, especially with the new forum setup. You only need to privately contact one of them if you want to refer a member for disciplinary proceedings, as far as I can recall, which almost no Citizens and even fewer members have ever done.

CdeC Members would actually be the best people to answer Citizenship questions, as they are the ones who decide who becomes a Citizen and who doesn't. If the councilors could be easily identified, more questions regarding citizenship would be directed to them and the responses would certainly be more qualified than those given in any casual Q&S thread.

So the badge's only real value (IMO) would be to show respect for CdC members. But really, someone who's a CdC member now doesn't deserve more respect than someone who used to be a CdC member. Medals are better suited to the purpose of giving respect ― and in fact CdC members already have a medal.

Not really. I already gave you a reason why CdeC Members should be more easily identifiable. Plus, whatever you might think of the Curia, the CdeC's work is integral to the site. The CdeC is the Council which decides who gets to be a Citizen and who doesn't and in fact, indirectly selects moderators, as you yourself have said in the past.

What I'm curious to know is whether badges are given on the basis of the "importance" of a body, or based on whether that body needs to be easily identifiable by the general membership.

I think there was some confusion, The CdC is not older then you, nor is it older then me or Garbarsardar. Either you or me were in Hex when it was proposed by WBK. The Curia is the institution that is older then any member of hexagon.

Ah, sorry about that. I misunderstood.

So basically your saying that no matter how many arguments we could have posted it would have had no influence on Hexagon. We do understand that the Curia voice was non binding but that agreement was made on the basis Hexagon made it policy to actually listen to the voices of the members.

We absolutely do listen to the voices of the members. We implement a large majority of Decisions, even though in most cases we would not have otherwise done what they request. But just because we consider and respond to every Decision doesn't mean we implement every one.

The non binding was to be used in matters of site and forum security like if i proposed something that would have cost Garb money. It was not seen to be something that Hexagon would use on cosmetic subjective superficial issues which some members of hex have said to me should be put in the hands of the curia.

The provision was put there to give Hex the final decision on all issues, not to handle cases like nobody being willing to provide funding. Those could have just been ignored based on common sense. The idea has always been (certainly since mid-2005) that the Curia is an advisory body whose opinion carries serious weight, but the decision is always ultimately up to the appropriate staff body. We have never committed to absolute deference to the Curia on any subject.

I've seen how you work and debate on the forums long enough to know you are not a person who is swayed by anything less then a solid evidence based argument.

As Aristotle put it,

it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

It is simply not possible to give hard evidence about what's confusing without running usability tests (which costs money, and a lot of time and effort). The matter needs to be left up to individual opinion.

On the issue of CDC, they work and are entitled to a badge just as much as content editors, Ian, Technical staff, moderators, tribunes, magistrates etc. If the others get a badge then its poor form to veto the CdC.

I would certainly support a reduction in the number of badges as well.

and the same doesnt apply to Tribunes? Yet they have a badge.

Personally, I don't think Tribunes need a badge either.

You meant the three members who flood the Q&S or Staff?

On which?

The Curia did not get rid of the Senatorii badge, it got rid of the rank altogether, which is an entirely different thing.

Well, it transformed it from a rank into a medal, which is basically equivalent to changing how the rank is displayed rather than getting rid of it entirely.

Also, I'd like to remind you that the Divus, Opifex and Phalera badges were abolished by Hex, not the Curia.

No, they were abolished by the Curia, in the same bill that eliminated Senatorii. We just took a long time implementing it.

And how are badges confusing?

As I explained, since you can only display one badge, some people with the rank will have it visible and some will not. The confusing part is that the badges are sometimes visible, sometimes hidden, so they don't reliably tell you who's who. The more ranks have badges, the more badges any individual can have, and the more they'll have to hide, so the less reliable badges will be as an indicator of rank. E.g., if someone is currently both CdC and content staff, and are displaying the content staff badge, but decide to switch to a new CdC badge, then people will no longer know they're content staff.

In my ideal vision for badges, all badges would be displayed all the time. But that would, as I say, require me to write a bunch of code, and it would require graphical changes too.

The badges were going to address the problem of the general membership not knowing who is on the CdeC and what the CdeC actually is.

Why should the general membership know either of those things? They should be encouraged to post well, and knowing the details of the approval system doesn't help that.

That could be said for the Senior Moderators, the Tribunes and Magistrates as well.

Moderators must display badges so that people know who to contact about rules violations and who they have to listen to (for, e.g., warnings in threads). I don't think Tribunes need badges, and especially not Magistrates. I think it would be fine if the only badges were for Citizens, staff, and the Curator. (And I suspect most of the people with content badges could do without those, unless the bar for getting one is a lot higher than I think.)

CdeC Members would actually be the best people to answer Citizenship questions, as they are the ones who decide who becomes a Citizen and who doesn't. If the councilors could be easily identified, more questions regarding citizenship would be directed to them and the responses would certainly be more qualified than those given in any casual Q&S thread.

Are you assuming that someone who doesn't even know where to look to learn about Citizenship will understand what "Consilium de Civitates" means?

What I'm curious to know is whether badges are given on the basis of the "importance" of a body, or based on whether that body needs to be easily identifiable by the general membership.

The two are pretty closely related. I'd be inclined toward the latter if there's a conflict, though, personally.

If Hex wants to set an offical position on "all" badges that is fine. Lets reclassify all badges and see which are really needed instead of vetoing all future proposals because some magic number can't be exceded.

I don't think we want to go so far right now as to remove existing badges by fiat.

Great work on the new group listings under the badge. Now can this proposal be revisited? If not as a badge atleast as a listed group? Althoug I think the badge should be available if one wanted to display it.

I don't know. Maybe. It depends if any Hex members are interested in reopening the issue. I don't really care enough to restart discussion. If another Decision passes we'd have to discuss it again, I guess.

Edit: We're discussing this now, no need for a new Decision.

Any word from the gods above?

*kneeling forehead on the cold damp floor*

Hex... we only want a sign, please........please the crops grow stunted in the fields, the children no longer laugh and play, tis midsummer yet winter clings to our soul. An answer is all we require. The world of TWC will always lie in the shadow of your divinity. Now for all members to see..... give us a sign and we shall except it and move on. In Garbs name we pray......... amen

This has been implemented, after further discussion in Hex, taking into consideration the new rank display system; the previous veto is of course declared null and void.

The blood of the lamb worked!!!!

In the name of imb are we blessed.....

Other points of interest include:

• CdeC Transparency
• Archaeology Subsection in VV
• Trolling
• consistency of rank and medal display amendment
• Required Percentage to Attain Citizenship
  

Until next time,

-- Soulghast

Soulghast sends his apologies for only producing a short 30 page report. Show off, there’s no place for show boaters on this publication!

Now enjoy this months page 3.

Page 3

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[FONT="Courier New"] The Page 3 just gets hotter every month, this time it's the beautiful, hot and talneted actress and super model Milla Jovovich to take centre stage. Start of the hit series Residential Evil she is set to take lead actress in the up and coming film 'A Perfect Getaway'.

That's for this months Helios, please remember to rep the reporters next time you see them just as way of saying thank you for all their hard work they put in. Now for all you youngesters ot there who can't grasp why the passing of Jackson is such as big deal I leave you with a one Michael Jacksons classic hits Bille Jean.



Take care
Freddie

[Silent Assassin]

Love your comments Freddie lol.... I would like to say to all the Helios Team " Great Work" and let's keep it that Way.

Regards
Rebel6666

[Heinz Guderian]

Great edition guys!

btw, is it me or are some of the spoilers in the Themia Devia section not opening?

[Silent Assassin]

Great edition guys!

btw, is it me or are some of the spoilers in the Themia Devia section not opening?

That is weird I can open them up. Freddie could you check this out please

[Freddie]

Great edition guys!

btw, is it me or are some of the spoilers in the Themia Devia section not opening?

It must be you, the spoilers open fine for me. I know the issue your having it happens to me sometime, the best thing to do is refresh the page or come back to it latter.

[Thanatos]

Happy happy joy joy!

[Basil the Great]

Nice job guy's

[Heinz Guderian]

It must be you, the spoilers open fine for me. I know the issue your having it happens to me sometime, the best thing to do is refresh the page or come back to it latter.

yeah i think you're right, it does happen from time to time. i still cant open them but i'll clear my cache/cookies and see what happens. its not a prob though.

sorry for detracting away from the quality of the issue. Keep it up men!!

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Really enjoyed E.Rommel's article

[Romanos IV]

Once again excellent work by the Helios team. Keep it up!

[Roman Knight]

Great issue guys.

[Silent Assassin]

Thanks all for you support and don't be affraid to leave us some feedback

[Empress Meg]

Page 3 needs to mix the genders up a bit...

Devoirs The Empress

[Freddie]

Page 3 needs to mix the genders up a bit...

Devoirs The Empress

I could inculde a Page 8 mate, any suggestions?

[davidrobert]

god job guys.i really enjoyed this issue at here