User talk:DanceDanceRevolution

edit User talk:DanceDanceRevolution Start a topic. Press: + Is it an emergency?  Email  Archives 2007 2008 2009 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2010 H1 H2 2011 Q1 Q2 H2 MORE 2012 2013 2014-2017

Who do you think laughed more?

Me or you? I come back for all of five edits, got under your skin, created a stink your still bitching about a total of 15 or so days later, essientially created a fictious arby, in the hopes that someone would take it more seriously than I ever did, only so I could refuse to take part, and all so that I could piss in your cheerios,... but the joke was on me... I see how that works. -Poodle of Doom^T*C 06:10, 16 October 2011 (BST)

You know we all forgot about you again the second you stopped posting, right? 12:02, 16 October 2011 (BST)

The true definition of Meh. --^{Hey Sweden!} 12:13, 16 October 2011 (BST)

Yeah the joke was on me. You flip the fuck out when I say 3 words, make an arbitration case which everyone literally pisses on for 4 days, you delete your newly created "awesome returning!" group and fuck back off. yeah jokes on me annoying 12:27, 16 October 2011 (BST)

And the only reason I felt inclined to rub it into your wholly overswollen vagina was because someone mentioned it and I realised how much you got owned annoying 12:28, 16 October 2011 (BST)

Poodle, if you were just joking around, why did you send me an email begging me to be a fair and unbiased arbitrator while at the same time expressing your fears that the community was plotting against you and planning to set up a biased ruling in the arbies case?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:07, 16 October 2011 (BST)

bitch got owned? annoying 23:34, 16 October 2011 (BST)

Ahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

hahahahahahah

ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahah

Now that we have settled it is, in fact, I who laughed most, I'd like to take the time to point out that "I was a puppetmaster all along, only pretending to be retarded!" is the most laughable excuse. This whingy, whining paragraph you posted here is much funnier than the whole case. Thankyou! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:56, 17 October 2011 (BST)

Well hello thar

Dun with being annoying, I see? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 06:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope to dance on the fine line between being helpful and annoying. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

can't make headers, cant indent

I have explanation in the discussion, and this is fact, not opinion. If you have someone with better than I understand to let someone else do it or I can't say it at least, but if you have the Red Rum statistic there you are showing proof for a guild, I am only showing proof for a player instead. But the proof is still there --Krazyxman 01:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're that guy? I don't see any subtantial proof at all. You're willing to tell me that proof of 11 screenshots is worth calling yourself the piñata king? I would highly suggest getting more proof before making this claim because at this stage, like on the talk page, I really think this will end up with your claim being refuted and you being laughed off the case D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

and btw, I also did not make this change for a long time until I have the proof on my profile to back up the claim. --Krazyxman 01:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have done 35 more than that already, but without screenshots, the rest of the new ones I have screenshots for, so if someone else has more, then I will agree with your judgement, but if no one else has more then making the judgement is wrong from you --Krazyxman 02:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I just hope with your 11 proven piñatas you just enjoy that 18.4 seconds of fame. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

it is 14 actually and it is increasing the more i play --Krazyxman 02:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

14! Make that 25 seconds. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

again, if others are so mad about it they want to just get 15 in a row in a few min. just to try to prove me wrong, then fine, I'll accept it, but if people want to play the real honest way, i have always been honest, even with all the ones i did before even though i wasn't keeping track of them at the time, but i have no reason to lie and if you saw my game profile at that time you will see I change it by one only every time i do it.....again, the only reason i start doing screenshots is to show i am not lying when i make my claim, otherwise i would say i did 1000 pinatas, but i never did it so why should i say it. --Krazyxman 02:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

even on the discussion page you can see people admitting i did many of the pinatas, so it is not like i am just making it out of thin air, just the exact number is in dispute, but i have always been honest about that--Krazyxman 02:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea what you're proving by going on about this, I don't actually care, as long as you have proof for your 'mammoth' achievement D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

lol

"Since DDR won't apologize, I'll just have to yell it here. LINKS DON'T WORK IF YOU'RE ALREADY ON THE PAGE YOU DUMBASSES. Good day! >:( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)"--SA 11:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, that duckling was so precious. We ought to put it at the bottom corner of the main page. :3 --SA 12:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I broke your page because thats what I do until I have my own header.--SA 12:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, everyone should just have a header for me at this point. :/ --SA 12:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

HA. okay fine consider it done A ZOMBIE ANT 13:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

So yeah...

You've got the basics, thinks there's a VB case as well. What else you want to know? --Rosslessness 18:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

holy shit

you're still around? Linkthewindow  Talk  13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The same goes for Ross, Boxy and to a lesser extent Aichon as well. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny thing, when you look purely at the number of years we've each been around, we've all been here for the majority of the game's life:

• August 2009 for me
• October 2007 for Ross
• August 2007 for DDR
• May 2006 for Boxy

And yet, despite that we've all been around for the majority of the game's life, I think we'd all agree (myself included), that there's a big difference in terms of how long it feels like people have been around between the people who were there before the game peaked (e.g. you, box, Ross, DDR, etc.) and the people who came by sometime after that (e.g. me). —Aichon— 15:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I miss the elders of the wiki. The Grims and the Vantars of my youth... --Rosslessness 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird isn't it? I joined not long before the game started to enter into decline (mid-2008, decline mid-2009 roughly,) and it always seemed that I'd missed out on the best years of the game.

What's stranger is that we're coming up to the one decade anniversary of UD next year, and my character's been in the game for seven of those ten years (so what you said, basically.) Linkthewindow  Talk  08:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep! Only occasionally since not much happens on the wiki. Nice to see you still around too. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty quiet these days. Less then 50 changes a day, and virtually all of them are people updating suburbs and danger reports. Still, it's nice to see that this place is still serving it's purpose. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. The game is dying so quickly, quite sad really. I'm thinking maybe a change in the suburb danger report descriptions might be warranted. A ZOMBIE ANT 09:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I've swung past a couple of the forums of the groups I used to be a part of - virtually all of them are dead (although the MCM is still going in game, which is very nice to see.) It's sad to see, despite the (many) problems with the game and the wiki (okay, mostly the wiki,) I generally enjoyed my time here. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You're all fucking old and I'm putting you in a home. 03:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Double holy fucks!--User:Sexualharrison14:23, 25 May 2014

It's funny how all the old guys come out of the woodwork suddenly. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Truly inactive psysop changes

In a nutshell, activity levels would be based on timestamps instead of edit count. We could have a few different levels of activity based on the timestamp. Let's say Active, Less Active, Inactive and Hiatus. Sysops notified on talk page if activity level is changed. To address the issue of crat inactivity, mandate that all crats maintain Active status. If a Less Active sysop is promoted to crat, they have one week to update timestamp, or vote is restarted without them as candidate. ~ _{06:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)}

Could it be automated? A ZOMBIE ANT 06:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. I had the same thought and tried to think of ways. Templates would be involved, so possibly. Edit: Yes it is possible, I've thought of a way. Or at least semi-automated. I think it might be better if it wasn't fully automated, since sysops would be notified of status changes. This could be a crat duty. ~ _{06:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)}

Sure, I meant the status but not the notification thing obviously. I think they key to its appeal would be the ability for it to be automated and not need maintenance. Upkeep isn't exactly one of the things this wiki prides itself on ;) A ZOMBIE ANT 07:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple. If a 'crat fails to make an edit for a month, anyone can ask them on their talk page if they're still around. Failure to reply in a week is grounds for putting their seat up for grabs. It preserves the community's authority in removing inactive 'crats, while giving us more flexibility in dealing with them by not forcing us to immediately put their seat up. A change like this is also more in line with the inactive sysops policy. It also means that if the community doesn't care that a 'crat is inactive, they can stay inactive. If the community does care, then the 'crat will need to be active or else they'll get demoted. Either way, the policy would react to the community. —Aichon— 07:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That would work as well, but without the added benefit of a page which shows at a galnce which sysops are active, less active, elegible for crat, etc. Even having such a page on the wiki gives sysops some administrative purpose for editing, which is benefit for anyone that believes that an occasional edit is an indication of activity. ~ _{07:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)}

I do like simplicity so I like Aichon's suggestion (der) but I don't mind the idea of a status of activity for each op. What numbers are you thinking for each status 'bracket'? A ZOMBIE ANT 07:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrarily, I'd say within 2 months for the first bracket, within 4 months for the second, after that, sysop is considered inactive and has a week before demotion. Hiatus could extend the second bracket to up to 6 months. ~ _{07:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)}

I'm gonna be totally honest, it's a shame we just didn't have more sysops. For me, that's always going to be the solution, get more sysops, reduce the activity quota so it literally only serves to stop totally inactive ops from being crat (I'm going to start calling it a "bob case" from now on) and I'm sure we'd be fine. There's gotta be a way to 'simulate' having more sysops through policy. There has to be a way. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If only there was a page that had some at-a-glance info about sysop activity... :P —Aichon— 07:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I still think the whole system, and I basically mean EVERYTHING, needs a rewrite at some point in simpler terms. —Aichon— 07:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)