Talk:OverClocked ReMix

message: Apparently, Chardish has decided that all of the OCR projects are not notable.  []  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)
thread_title: OCR projects are not notable?

message: 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)
thread_title: Forums

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unfinished Collaboration Projects

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Politics, Philosophy & Religion forum

message: 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)
thread_title: Judges Panel changes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: LJU forum ban

message: 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)
thread_title: OCR Quirks

message: "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)
thread_title: Non-NPOV?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shameful opping 

message: Site has been down for me the past couple of days.  Is it down for anyone else?  Dionyseus 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, but now its all well and good (and has been for some time...) --Xeccos 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site down? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy & Forums Stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Celebrity endorsements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legality? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiable claim? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Jeremy Soule's remix 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-profit status 

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