# Talk:OverClocked ReMix

Apparently, Chardish has decided that all of the OCR projects are not notable.  [[1]]  I don't know if I agree or disagree with them, but it seems pretty prejudiced to me. Draconiator 05:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the entire subsection about the OCR forums, trying to remain as neutral as possible.  I've explained what each forum's purpose is in very broad, objective terms.  The previous content had errors concerning forum names and concentrated more on UnMod than the forums at large.  Hopefully each forum is given an equal amount of attention now without any POV issues.
Darkesword 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to a previous edit by Corporal, it's probably prudent to only mention completed and officially acknowledged ReMix collabs on the OCR page, as there are currently two finished projects, and somewhere near fifteen unfinished ones. If strictly necessary, another section could be created for unfinished collabs, but I don't think that's really important enough to bear mention. CXI 01:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the mention of Chrono Symphonic from the end of the Projects section; as of this writing, the project is neither completed nor released.  Only completed and released projects should be mentioned. Darkesword 15:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't the thread originally built upon some strict standards of deadlines and quality? That post I can't find anymore. It seemed to have been replaced with a new post pretty much saying anything goes. And now we have 15 unfinished projects just sitting around. Is quality control just dead at this point? -NNY

Still around and lonely, Prot. If I were you, I wouldn't be giving lessons to anyone on how to crack the whip on a collaboration album. Pretty sad that you keep coming back, Ari. Misrepresenting yourself as someone else, no less. - Liontamer 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think PPR deserves a sentence, if UnMod gets one. Someone more familiar with it can add that, though. 203.26.24.221 15:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I don't think PPR has as much controversy or history as UnMod. Still, if anyone can think of enough to write about it, nobody's going to complain. CXI 05:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think so; the article should really just focus on the music as opposed to the forums; if any forums should be mentioned, it should be Remixing and WIP. --Darkesword 13:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

For anyone checking, the changes made to the names on the judges' panel are accurate. There's been a lot of infighting in the panel as of late, with a few members leaving in protest and being subsequently replaced. I'm not sure if this information is encyclopaedic, though, so I haven't added it to the main article. CXI 09:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could somebody provide a list of people currently and previously on the Panel?
I'd be even more grateful if a description of why former Panel members are now gone. --Fivre 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm as interested in that as you are and know a fair amount of the history, but honestly, for the encyclopedic way in which Wiki articles are to be handled, it's not a relevant issue. Liontamer 20:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Nonetheless, here's a nice template box for you. No use for this on the main page, as frankly, it would be deemed NN: Liontamer 22:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed some stuff added recently that's kinda out of place here, including LJU's ban. It's not interesting or useful to the article in general. If we do stuff like this, we might as well add info about Seifer, the forum trouble earlier this year and other bans. --Smoke 10:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Some additions on why I've removed this: The actual text was factually wrong and misspelled Suzumebachi's name. Also, Mythril Nazgul's not a mod. He's a Project Coordinator. While this means he does have limited powers in the Site Projects forum and gives him a nice different-colored name, it does not make him a moderator. There's a Group listing on the forums themselves you can check if you want more info on member groups.--Smoke 18:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

At neminem's suggestion, I added a link to the OCR Quirks thread at the bottom. I don't know whether the Quirks thread should be mentioned in the article or not.-I.Medley

It's since been removed a while ago. Not needed to provide a basic overview of the site and its purpose. Liontamer 20:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"David Lloyd rightfully also has the power to veto a judges' decision, although instances are very rare. The judges' decisions are viewable on the site forums"... that "rightfully" seems a little too POV to me.  It could easily be taken out and the sentence has the same meaning, but is now neutral.  Anyone even care?

Dunno who wrote this, but you're right on that count. Removed. Liontamer 20:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Its a real shame that the same people who lord over the ocremix subculture and play god with the speech rights of others must do the same thing on this site. Too bad we aren't actually allowed to mention what really goes on in ocr without some power trip like Smoke or Liontamer cutting up our text in the name of the facade of peace. These coverups are pretty lame.
-NNY

Protricity, you're as boring and bored as ever. OCR isn't worth engaging in any coverups. Don't see how your vandalism comes across as a crusade for freedom or a neutral point of view. You'll be a whiner about OCR even when you're 80 years old. Don't need your sorry agendas tainting and spinning the information here. - Liontamer 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Liontamer had yet to even visit #OCRemix during the younger days of the channel. It WAS indeed moderated by a close-knit group of folks including Children of the Monkey Machine, Maridia, PosiBolt, Tacoriffic, and Nacodamus. Of course, they eventually lost interest in moderating and became much more laid-back. That is a FACT (well, laid-back could also be considered "lax" depending on your point of view). I take a great offense to being called a known site "detractor". I've been an active and contributing member of the OCRemix community since late 2001. [2]
Consensus supports my statements. Liontamer is not qualified to dispute my information on 2001-2002 #ocremix goings-on. I can provide logs and examples if the need arises, but I hope that wont be necessary. --Star Salzman 21:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see it's you that made the edit rather than Protricity with his whole pariah syndrome. He's a martyr to anyone that'll listen. But in any case, the original problem with the statement was that you had no years/people mentioned for context, making your additions appear misleading. By the time the IRC channel reform happened, there was a newer group of ops in place (Vigilante, analoq, comet11, Antonio Pizza, etc.) who had nothing specifically to do with the 2001-2002 #ocremix or the "closed and uncontroversial" climate you're claiming the old channel had. Nonetheless, Star, your points are made clear with that additional info, and should be kept. Though despite the reform, the channel does remain open and controversial, just not hospitable to the stupidity and excess of some of its more mentally unstable and far-gone members. - Liontamer 07:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Larry, you know as well as I do that abuse/stupidity is not what got me banned several times from #ocremix. I'd never broken a channel rule until the rules were made so broad that basically you could get banned for disagreeing with the management (even if you presented your disagreement in a civil fashion). I disagreed with David Lloyd one too many times, and thats what lead to the eventual censorship. I would not call that "open" by any standards. Just because idiots are free to talk about contemporary moral problems, you think the channel is open? If it were an open forum for exchange of ideas, I would have never been ostracized. As it stands, you may never ever disagree with the owner. It's like directive 4 in robocop. Classified! -Star Salzman 21:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I never agreed with your banning from #ocremix. But at the same time it's not a democracy, nor it is obligated to be. The channel is generally open and allowed to be controversial, which is the best everyone's going to get. The fact that certain few people are prohibited there doesn't meaningfully change that, as the ban list isn't particularly large, though I agree with you that your own banning was not for abuse/stupidity reasons and didn't support it. - Liontamer 01:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to know exactly what makes Starblast an expert on #ocremix from 2001-2002.  He was not active then.  - EdgeCrusher 15:47, 9 December 2005

Does anyone else think olremix is notable enough to be mentioned in a "parody sites" section of this article? Posts on OCRemix link to that site somewhat often as a place where humorously poor-quality songs should go, including both intentionally-bad joke songs and unintentionally bad ones. It may actually help OCR by minimizing the crud the OCR judges have to deal with being submitted. I don't know the history behind the site or the relationship is has with OCR, but it seems relevant and notable enough to me. –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd definitely say OLR is a qualified mention, but as for a parody section--are there enough OCR parodies existent to warrant a whole section? Besides RoFL, what else? I think a little piece in the links section works, so. Here goes. If anyone disagrees, gets bored, or doesn't like me anymore since I dyed my hair, changed my name to se Lavanta de Muerta, and took off into the desert randomly, feel free to delete as you may. Also. I'm gonna feel a little bad writing something about OLR that isn't insane, inane, or complete nonsense, but is, sadly, just plain boring... Si tragique. -se Levanta de Muerta (Ventrex)

I just visited the OCReMix page, and... Pop-ups? The nessessity to log in, and pay, to download the music? Is this just an April Fools joke not down yet? 205.188.116.137
Wait, yes... Yes it is. I didn't notice the little "Mother's Maiden Name" thing thar. I feel like a dumb ass now... 205.188.116.137

Site has been down for me the past couple of days.  Is it down for anyone else?  Dionyseus 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The server is having problems. It was up for a short period (about 20 minutes) earlier today, and now it's down again. Xerol 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but now its all well and good (and has been for some time...) --Xeccos 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The announcements thread regarding the new judges has shrunk from 12 pages to 11 pages, which shows that posts were, in fact, removed. Threads at the top of UnModerated appeared partway into the forum's lifespan regarding increased moderation, which shows that standards have, in fact, tightened over time. I want this article to be truthful, not just truthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.143.155.146 (talk • contribs) .

Posts were removed because people were making unnecessary passive-aggressive attacks against Dave, Jill and the site staff in general. The thread in question was an announcement about new judges, not an invitation to critique the decision in spite of what many of the people whose posts were removed might've thought. As for Unmod, the forum has always had limited moderation for extreme abuse. As time passed, new rules were put in place when people found a loophole and took advantage of such a situation. As any human would know, even in the most free areas, laws and rules are still necessary to protect that freedom. Orichalcon 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The OCR project AFD debate brought forth an interesting issue: Apparently, there's been glow from Real Game Musicians who have given thumbs up for OCRemixers. This really should be mentioned in the article... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article include a discussion of the legal issues surrounding OC ReMix and related projects? Nanten (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In the "Industry Reaction" section, it says "The organization has never received criticism from a game composer or game publisher"...  This could be substantiated if the intended meaning of "receive" is in the way of direct communication with the organization, which the organization could confirm.  But in common usage, one "receives criticism" whenever someone gives criticism OF the receiving party--not necessarily TO, while the receiving party may or may not be aware of it.  (For instance, I could say to my friend, "I don't like Wikipedia because of X, Y, and Z," and Wikipedia would be thought of as "receiving criticism" even though Wikipedia would be unaware of it.)  So the statement as it is suggests that criticism has never been given by any "game composer or game publisher", which is unsubstantiable, because it is impossible to know.  I don't have much experience editing Wikipedia, but I have been using it for many years and found this uncharacteristic and surprising.  I suggest it be removed or rephrased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.137.85 (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 
I found out the reference that ends the second part of that sentence contains the quote from David Lloyd that this claim was taken from.  He said exactly: "We've never gotten negative feedback from a game composer or game publisher."  Negative feedback does not translate directly to receiving criticism.  Feedback correctly implies that the receiver is both the recipient of the communication and the subject of it.  I will change the phrasing to reflect this.  (And sorry I didn't know about the signature thing...) —206.160.157.129 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do we know it was the real Jeremy Soule? It could have been a fake. Nomchan (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OCRemix's site owner said that it was the real deal. I presume he verified that it was true, and it does certainly sound like his style. --PresN 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
We know. "Squaresoft Variation" is also hosted on Soule's personal site. He's also discussed submitting to OCR in a G4 interview. - Liontamer (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OverClocked ReMix, LLC isn't a 501(c)(3), but this page gives the impression that it is.  For example, under Revenue, this page says "Not-for-Profit" and links to the Non-profit Organization wiki page.  The first sentence of the article also calls it a "non-profit organization" and links to the same page.  I suggest such language be removed unless OCR LLC files for 501(c)(3) status.
The IRS maintains a searchable list of 501(c)(3) organizations, replacing their publication 78 list.  I discovered OverClocked ReMix, LLC was not in this database; the next day, djp apparently admitted on IRC that the LLC isn't actually a non-profit, but I wasn't there, so the IRS is my citation.  http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=249767,00.html 107.3.158.183 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#OverClocked ReMix and its issues  czar ♔ 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)