Remember?Remember when RvB used to be a calm quiet community for a few (comparatively)gamers who were lucky enough to have found a place with like minded individuals to hang out with? Remember when everyone watched the videos and waited impatiently for the next to come out? Remember RvB when we were all die hards who just couldn't get enough Halo? Before all the Social Networking "extras". Back when people actually knew how the site got started. Before all the flashy colors and useless add ons. But now the tell us its "better" new and improved. Flashy colors sharp pictures the whole place re-geared toward the larger "community". Now we have noobs who don't even know what the word noob means. We have people who've never watched the original videos and we have great things like advertisements to support all the new fangled crap we've gotten in place of the good old site we used to have. Instead all we have is a glorified myspace clone with halo pictures. New and improved huh? Yeah....I miss the way it used to be.
>_>No ladies and gents I'm not dead I've just been spending my time elsewhere. I'm mostly on myspace: PandorasCurse and Facebook: Candice Koonce these days. So if you have either add me and hit me up sometime.
Mod points had their warts. People *could* stockpile them and use 50 at once to totally kill the karma of a user. It's true that there WAS a potential for abuse.
However, mod points had a certain level of accountability. You couldn't just register email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, etc. and up your level. First off, free registrations were blocked, and secondly, it created a trail that would allow such abuses to be corrected (e.x. warning and banning).
They also carried a certain amount of fun. Who DIDN'T want to work hard to win a contest? Even if it's just a number on a website, it was fun.
Mod points also, in my opinion, helped the quality of posts on the forums tremendously. It made people *want* to post quality posts. I wouldn't just post for the sake of posting. I'd post the funniest stuff I could find, try to help others out, etc.
Also, it carried a certain amount of responsibility in posting. You didn't HAVE unlimited mod points, so every +1 funny or -1 WTF was a serious consideration: Does this post deserve it? I only modded things funny if I literally laughed out loud. You'd have to spend one of your precious points. That meant that mod points were usually used responsibly, and if something was modded +5 Funny, you could be sure that it was worth reading.
Now, mod points are basically worthless. I could just mod bomb a thread -1 WTF on every post now (don't worry, I'm not a jerk). But, in the end, that too would be meaningless. When every post has mods, it's hard to separate the insightful from the normal, the comedic gold from the crappy punchlines.
It also encourages crap posting for the sake of leveling. It used to be that "lol, me too" posts would be ignored. Now? It's tied to your Karma. This will encourage quantity over quality.
Will I return for RvB reconstruction and other machinima? Yes. Will I be likely to participate in the community as much? No.
Note: I know I don't have a lot of forum posts or anything...but I did read and enjoy the RvB community a lot, and I think that this change is one for the worse.
2 Down 48 To Go(CNN) -- The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
The ruling takes effect in 30 days.
Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, filed a lawsuit saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he is "profoundly grateful" for the decision and for the court's "eloquence" in its delivery.
"After four long years, we're very, very gratified," he said.
Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling "a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."
"California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he said.
Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, issued a statement saying, "Today's ruling affirms that committed couples, gay and straight, should not be denied the duties, obligations and protections of marriage. ... This decision is a vital affirmation to countless California couples -- straight and gay -- who want to make and have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and be responsible for each other."
Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.
"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.
"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."
The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.
"The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.
A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he said.
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.
In 2004, San Francisco officials allowed gay couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.
"We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called the ruling a victory not just for the city "but for literally millions of people. ... What the court did is simply affirm their lives."
CNN's Ted Rowlands reported that "huge cheers" went up in San Francisco when the ruling was announced.
In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.
"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to wed. However, then-Gov. Mitt Romney resurrected a 1913 law barring non-resident marriages in the state if the marriage would be prohibited in the partners' home state.
Subsequent court and agency decisions have determined that only residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island or New Mexico may marry in the state, unless the marriage partners say they intend to relocate to Massachusetts after the marriage.
New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil unions, and California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights, as do some other countries.
"It's a throwaway line, but I think it's true: As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation," Newsom said. "And I don't think people should be paranoid about that. ... Look what happened in Massachusetts a number of years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is doing wonderfu
Wedding BellsWent to my first wedding of the summer yesterday. Two of my best friends Zack shadowdrgon and Sarah unicorn_3 got married yesterday. The bride was gorgeous, the wedding was beautiful, the reception was a blast, and Zack well he was Zack :op (what can I say he's like a brother to me). I couldn't be happier for the both of them. So do me a favor and go spam the hell outta both of their pages while they are gone on their honeymoon.
And Happy Mother's Day to all you moms out there. Peace Love and Flames Phoenix