Handman

Jay has always been somewhat snobbish, which has only gotten more severe over the years.

It reminds me of David Lynch.

I find that the content, the way media portrays that content, and the way the general fanbase interprets that content, are three entirely different things. I’ve definitely let one influence the way I’ve felt about the others before. But lately I’ve been trying to keep them separate and come to my own conclusions… more or less.

But please believe me, it is a lot less angry than I would have written a few days ago.

I believe ya, Warb. No sweat.

Chewtobacca said:

I’m sorry to say it, williarob, but it might be as simple as a levels issue.

Top: before
Bottom: after ColorYUV(levels=“TV->PC”)

N.B. I don’t think that the standard adjustment works well for the whole film (at least not for the blacks), but it definitely gets the levels in the right ballpark.

Yeah, blacks look a bit crushed to me. But some improvements could be made.

Handman said:

It is definitely hard.

I can say it off the bat, I’m guessing you’re not going to be banned for that.

You mention a bad attitude, and that you’ve been carrying a lot of anger for a very long time. Unfortunately, and I must be blunt, I think that anger shows in your post. Not that you can’t be angry, but when providing feedback, it becomes difficult for that feedback to be of the highest quality when you’re angry. I think there are a lot of similarities between what you say have to be fixed and my previous post in this topic.

However, your anger comes across in your tone, which immediately places the receiver of that feedback into the defensive, like it or not. Like I said to Jay (possibly in another thread), if you expect better behavior, you should try to hold yourself to that standard, even in the face of opposition. It is definitely hard, and certainly frustrating at times, but it’s also the easiest way to enact change.

Anyway, I don’t want to make this sound like I’m dismissing the contents of your post. There are a lot of valid points. I just want to try to make clear that it should not be surprising if the mod team finds it difficult to listen.

Yeah, this episode was emotionally sound. I’m reminded of “Thin Ice”, where the Doctor punched a bigot in the face. This presented a situation where that wasn’t possible, even though you want that to happen, and as a result was much more effective on an emotional level. Rosa Parks was portrayed well, but again the story feeds more into the legend of Rosa Parks we’re taught in elementary school rather than history. However, the period setting was very well realized. The whole dynamic between all of the companions and the Doctor is starting to come into its own, and I’m really liking these characters.

The weakest part of the story by far is the villain… what was his motivation? He was a bit of a cartoon. However, the villain only existed to present the premise of the episode, and wasn’t meant to be a focus, so it’s not a major weakness.

However, a part of this did feel like an after-school special, especially the final scene. But this wasn’t really so much a lesson about the historical context that surrounded this particular event, so much as a lesson on racism in 1950s America in general. The show is also aimed at a younger audience, so this is the approach that makes the most sense anyway.

Very effective.

LordZerome1080 said:

His sidekick is a pussy. 😏

No, you’re thinking of dahmage.

Ronster said:

You need to be sure that when you see these colors, these are the colors you are getting:

This really does not hold up when you consider Vader’s chest plate is Blue yet it is green in some shots.

This has nothing to do with having a calibrated monitor. This is due to the source you are working with, which is flawed.

Please answer this rather than keep having a go at me otherwise I quit this site.

Answer what? What you are saying is complete nonsense.

It’s like trying to put a HD signal on an old CRT monitor. It won’t work because it is a different standard.

LordZerome1080 said:

Anything Alexander The Great did is fantastic in my book.

Try telling me Alexander the Great doesn’t look like Mark Zuckerberg.

Ronster said:

Flubly said:

Ronster said:

Caliberate a monitor to somone elses monitor is nonsense.

Sorry, forgot to mention this in my last post:

Calibrating a monitor to someone elses’ monitor IS nonsense. Calibration is done to an external set of standards, a studio doesn’t have a particular monitor they’re trying to match. They use tools like the Spyder 5.

A list of image sets for calibration and clear instructions can get you good results too, though. Again, not hitting absolute perfection is not an excuse for not trying at all.

Also, SMPTE was founded in 1916. Their standards influenced the manufacturing process of the film Star Wars was shot on. Their standards have also influenced how cameras are built today, how TVs are built today, how editing programs are coded, the specifications of DCPs projected in theaters, the specifications of TV broadcast since TV’s birth, etc.

If you think these standards are bunk, I’d like to know why and what the science would be behind a new standard.

A television can be calibrated such that no amount of color correction could make a source look correct. If I shifted the hue on a TV so that the green subpixels aren’t on, you can boost green in your source file all day and still not see an iota of it on the screen. At the end of the day, the monitor/tv is the one physically emitting light towards your eyes, not the source media.

This is a an association body. It will cost a lot of money to be an associate and what that grants you access to clients who work within that association.

It’s another way of shrugging off competition from smaller companies. Just because they have standards does not mean the actual association or even members of that association created those standards. They merely recognise a set standard and to be a member and put an SMPTE stamp on your company will also mean you have to meet that standard no doubt.

They are also part of drug company imaging devices big pharma contracts.

There is not anything wrong with an association body per se but like I said, this is a way of shutting out smaller competitive companys out of contracts because they can not afford the membership fees of being part of the association. And contracts are probably rarely given outside SMPTE membership in certain spheres of influence.

Not all bad but not all good either totally un-competitive though.

$13,500 dollars good client access or $20,000 for better client access per year.

…So you won’t calibrate your monitor because of big pharma?

This is all you need to look at.

I’ve never looked into the Hammer stuff. Is it more on the campy side?

A bit. I’m a huge fan of TOS (shocker) and the 60s Batman, so I guess I can’t say camp is bad. At the time, these movies were absolutely shocking, since it’s gorier, bloodier, and more sexually explicit than Universal, but these days it’s not terrifying. It can be horrifying, though (Curse of the Werewolf has a rape scene in the first five minutes. That movie in particular is really dark). Like the Universal films, they create a distinct atmosphere that I haven’t seen anywhere else. And that vivid Technicolor photography is gorgeous!

Here are a few clips to demonstrate the kind of atmosphere you can expect:
Dracula/Brides of Dracula
The Curse of the Werewolf

You don’t view warnings to other members for a particular behavior as applying to you as well? Warning Frink many times for snark didn’t make you think doing the same would be a problem?

There is a possibility he did not see those warnings. They were not addressed to him, and I don’t think we should expect every member to read every new post of every thread to see them. Again, this is mostly a communication issue. If a mod addresses a member specifically to disengage with a certain behavior, then it is logical to assume it is addressed to that member specifically. If a mod wishes to address the entire forum, they should make a general announcement.

And you don’t see warnings as having a cumulative effect over time? Because we definitely keep track (more or less, not like an official tally, but more of a “this member has definitely been warned multiple times for this” sort of thing).

I suppose the warning system could be a bit more formal. Other forums have a sort of “health bar” that indicates how you’re doing in regards to warnings. If an exchange gets heated, and a mod warns a member to disengage, that member may think it is in response to that specific exchange. If in a completely unrelated exchange a few months later, if a member does something they consider different, but the mod does not, that member could be banned as the mod has justified it with the previous warning. Again, this is a communication issue. It could be resolved by making the warning system a bit more explicit, as for right now, it’s a bit vague to me, and I’m sure to others as well. A small remark that receives a warning could be better tracked and made clearer as to how long they follow you.

Anyway, I came here to address the post you replied to me with:

Generally speaking, yes. In the context of a political debate, I don’t agree.

I think if this is the stance you take, then it is probably for the best that politics are no longer allowed, as this is where most of the conflict seems to stem from.

What do you propose I do? Genuine question. Here are the options I see, but I welcome your input.

1. I continue as I have been, participating like any other member. I speak at the same level as others, including when things get snippy, and in exchange we have an experience that is as close to unmoderated as possible while still maintaining rules to keep things on the rails. Warnings are relatively few and far between (as they have been, even though some of you probably feel otherwise), and occasionally someone gets banned because they don’t know when to quit.

2. I up my game and avoid escalating confrontations. I stay polite when presented with hostility. However, because I’m expected to be a model member and mod, I can never truly engage and must respond to provocations with appropriate warnings per the rules. And not an endless stream of warnings; multiple warnings result in a ban.

I think there can be a balance struck here. You can continue to engage like any other member, but avoid escalating confrontations when presented with hostility. That’s the key word: escalating. But this still leaves the issue of role ambiguity as to where the “just another member” hat merges into the admin hat. That’s where the next option comes in:

3. I strip myself of mod powers. You guys trust the mods to moderate (I do) and not play favorites. We’d need another mod for sure, and the existing mods would have to agree to it.

I think this is also a required option if you choose to engage like a normal member. That is, to not use your mod powers in discussions you are in a heated exchange in. I think that is where a lot of the fallout with the locking of the political threads started. You were in a heated exchange, and were upset by dahmage’s snark, which only contributed to whatever feeling the political exchange created. I think the key is that if you want to engage like any other member, you can’t use your mod powers in those discussions. This does not mean you must strip yourself of them completely. If you are not personally involved in a discussion, then it’s fair play. But if a mod is acting like anybody else, and they get in an argument, they should defer to another mod to see if action is warranted.

It’s a bit tough, but the way it goes now, everything is a bit vague and that can leave an uneasy feeling with members.

I regret not writing something up to announce the changes and providing a thread to discuss them in an organized fashion. Major failure on my part.

I appreciate your recognition here. Really, when it comes to moderating, I think over-explaining something to the point of boredom (that is, why actions are being taken when they are being taken, not the three-day retrospective we have now, ha!) is the safer option over possibly not explaining enough, even if they might fall on deaf ears. At least there was an attempt, and the actions are justified then-and-there. Again, that rests on communication. I remember telling oojason something similar at one point. Explain, explain, explain. Sounds tiring, but I think it would probably diffuse a lot of conflict.

Anyway, that’s what I think in regards to the posed questions. A more structured, formal system of moderation that doesn’t allow for any ambiguity, essentially. How feasible all of this is given how few mods are here, I’m not sure, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a model to strive towards.

LordZerome1080 said:

Tbh this whole situation sucks. I wish Jay would unban Possessed, Collipso and Frink. I also wish Jay would apologise.

I don’t think it’s fair to lay all of what’s happened on Jay (“drive into a tree”… really?). The reaction to the closing of the politics thread was disproportionate, but communicating that decision could have been better too.

I agree, this situation sucks. But taking sides (especially three days after the events have taken place) helps no one.

“Today I Learned”

JEDIT: Drat. Too slow.

I’m continuing this from the Current Events thread because I have some questions that seem better suited here.

snooker said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Current event that affects me (and the rest of the LGBTQ community) very personally.

I have read this article, which states:

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

Now, from what I’ve gathered elsewhere, and from the rest of this thread, is that gender and sex are two very different things. As such, I don’t really see how the bit quoted above is controversial, as that is what I’ve been led to believe for quite some time.

The main problem, far as I can tell, is that most laws were written before such a distinction was made, hence laws like Title IX will say that discrimination based on sex is not good, but did not make the distinction to mention gender. Have I got that right?

The article seems to be saying that the definition of sex itself is offensive, at least that’s the way it’s worded to me. Wouldn’t that be inaccurate?

Needless to say, I do think clarifying this all is necessary given how messy recent events have been, but to use it as an excuse to discriminate is abhorrent. It should be easy to see that all previous laws using “sex” should also extend to gender, seeing as they were written before there was such a distinction.

If I am misinformed, please do not hesitate to correct me. I don’t intend to be harmful, but this is how I’m currently understanding these events.

I’m very sorry to see that this may effect you in a negative way.

LordZerome1080 said:

ray_afraid said:

chyron8472 said:

ray_afraid said:

But Warb isn’t getting death wishes and private threads where people talk about how much they violently hate him.

Life is too short to worry about what people could be saying. I think you’re blowing this out of proportion.

I’m not guessing at what’s being said. I can read it.
But I’ve said more about all of this that I want to, so I won’t say any more.
I hope Frink, Possessed and Collipso come back.

With Jay involved I find this unlikely

That’s helpful.

It’s alright. My username isn’t really great to play around with. But I’ve used it for over a decade, so it’s stuck.

Handy

Ew.

Williarob said:

So it’s not out at all yet…?

How are you planning on watching Dawn of the Dead? The DVDs and single Blu-ray have been OOP for a very long time. I missed out!

I’ve still yet to see The Invisible Man, but if the rest of the film is like the clips I’ve already seen, I love it already. House on Haunted Hill is fantastic as well.

I don’t really have any ritual for Halloween, but my favorite horror films would have to be from Hammer. Brides of Dracula, Curse of the Werewolf are among the best. But there are others that ape their style, and add a bit of something else like giallo or mystery, like Theater of Blood, Tales from the Crypt, and Asylum. Of course I love the usual Universal Horror too, mostly the Frankenstein films. And the great silents, Nosferatu, Phantom of the Opera, and The Man Who Laughs.

And who could forget The Devil’s Rain?

Remove the admin badge from the bottom of my posts and they fit right in with all the rest. Yet somehow, I’m abusive and hostile and everyone else is a victim.

…replying to some of you in kind is beneath me and maybe I shouldn’t do it, but at the very least, it makes those of you criticizing me for it hypocrites.

I didn’t want to get too involved one way or another, but this post is a bit of a tipping point for me. Let me at least try to explain where the others are coming from.

It is precisely because you are an admin that people feel this way. Far as I can tell, you want to be a normal contributor, but your status as admin prevents that. You, more than anyone else, are an example for how the community should behave. If you are overly-hostile, it doesn’t matter if they were hostile first, you are the admin and should be setting an example. You often bemoan the way the others behave, but you yourself admit that your posts fit in with all the rest, so why should you expect any different…?

It is not hypocritical to hold administrators to a different standard.

Don’t diss the lefties. We’ve been oppressed for quite some time. I remember an elementary librarian yelling at me to not use my left hand to write. So now I’m ambidextrous.