Reznas

This is coming from someone biased ('05 was when I bought my first set), but honestly, I never had a problem with the Hordika. As Shockwave mentioned above, for a bunch of sets intended to look mutilated and deranged, I think LEGO did pretty well. I mean, the sets might not be as appealing to the eye as, say, some of the '01-'04 sets, but they served a purpose.

I do think the chest plate, as Sumiki mentioned, is kind of annoying. I remember trying to MoC with it all the time--it was the worst armor piece ever.

-Rez

I fail to understand this trend of "Bionicle is a disappointment" topics. There have been three or four in the past couple of months...and it's kind of annoying.

Here's the deal, if we look for every problem in every story, or in anything in life, for that matter, all we will ever find is disappointment. Stories aren't perfect, because they're made by people, who aren't perfect either. It's getting slightly irritating that so many people expect Bionicle to be perfect when that's a false expectation. The majority of this site still enjoys Bionicle, that's why we've stayed four years after it ended to continue discussing it. It really ruins the mood when people come in and try to tell us why we shouldn't like Bionicle.

Can I make a simple request and ask those who are trying to pick apart Bionicle to please just let it be? You've made your point.

-Rez

Majhost and Brickshelf are currently down. Occasionally they have a couple days of maintenance. During that time you can use sites like flickr, DeviantArt and a myriad of other image hosting sites. Alternatively, you can just use those sites instead of Majhost/Brickshelf in general. They're only recommendations, like others have said.

Also, for future questions related to images, please post them in the Pictures Topic.

-Rez

EDIT: If flickr isn't working, just Google "image hosting" and use whatever site you wish. Personally, I've been using "Postimage.org" while Majhost has been down.

It's also worth noting that occasionally members will be kind enough to gift Premier Memberships (i.e. Lady Kopaka's Premier Membership Giveaway). Similarly, some contest prizes may be Premier Membership packages, although that's a pretty rare occurrence.

-Rez

Sadly, the only three Metroid games I haven't played are the three Primes...Still on my to do list. Anyway, these MoCs are amazing! They're incredibly accurate. And Samus is spot-on. Looks really nice! Keep up the good work!

-Rez

 

I could argue that even a supported argument doesn't equal a truthful argument. In reality, truth is relative from person to person.

In terms of the proper definition of truth in logic, a soundly supported argument is a true one. Of course, then people go on to question whether any given argument really is sound; my point is, truth isn't actually relative (except in matters of taste, which this isn't).

But what basis of truth is a soundly supported argument upheld by? A definition is created by a person, an argument is created by a person and speculation based on the argument is created by a person. Therefore, knowing that each person has a different perception of truth, how can we truly know that a soundly supported argument is true? Technically speaking, truth isn't relative, no, because there can only be one truth. What I mean is that perceptions of truth are relative.

-Rez

Since logic is at issue here, lemme cut in here.

 

All Pomegranate said was that if a lot of people are disagreeing with somebody, that's a reason to "consider" the somebody might be wrong. That isn't the same as saying the somebody is wrong because people disagree. Notice the wording:

 

the very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain should be enough to tell you that maybe you are wrong and need to consider what they're saying to you

Now I presume Pomegranate believes that view IS definitely right, but that conclusion wasn't worded as being based on the fact that many agree. It's based on all the other things Pom has said (and more; we could probably write more than the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject).

 

You do have a point. I must have missed the "maybe" part. Had I noticed it, I probably wouldn't have called the section out. I, therefore, digress.

Not if the statement is based on sound support.

I could argue that even a supported argument doesn't equal a truthful argument. In reality, truth is relative from person to person. That doesn't mean that the truth each of us derive is real true. But since each person determines what he considers true, we can never conclude a finite truth. You see, if the perception of truth changes from person to person, any statement can theoretically be right or wrong.

-Rez

Because I am right.

That's subjective. Theoretically you could be wrong. I think you're right, because I totally think Bionicle had elements of sexism. But the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that definitively calling one side wrong and your side right is logically flawed. Of course you think your side is right and the other side is wrong. That's a given. But that doesn't make the other side inherently wrong. It just makes it wrong from your perspective. 

Again, I do agree with you, so don't take this like an attack on the views you laid out. I'm simply pointing out that a definitive, "I'm right," is logically flawed.

-Rez

the very fact that people are complaining about it and trying to explain should be enough to tell you that maybe you are wrong and need to consider what they're saying to you(p4,5,6,7,8).

This logic is kind of flawed, because anyone else could say the same to you. If I complained and tried to explain my point of view to you, would that make you wrong and automatically require you to consider what you're saying?

-Rez

EDIT: Do note, I'm not questioning your post, but rather this specific section that has some logical fallacies.

BOGA has been dead for a while now. It never fails to surprise me that people still try to link others to it rather than the BMP.

Hey, no need to be antagonistic about it. I had no idea the downloads no longer worked. Not to mention the front page of BOGA actually links to BMP anyway...

-Rez

Look here. It's an archive of most of the online Bionicle games.

-Rez

They don't seem very unorganized to me - in fact, I spent a long time putting them into similar groups and alphabetizing them by the emoticon text. All the generic smilies are together, and so are all the signs, and the flags, and the Kanohi, and the Bohrok, etc...

 

I suppose we could remove some, but obviously some people like them, so I don't foresee that happening.

I think the main problem others are having is that they don't use the "show all" page for smileys and don't see the coding for each of them. Personally, I always searched based on visuals on that page, but now that you've pointed out that they're alphabetically ordered for the most part, I don't foresee having any issues anymore. I digress on the reorganization idea.

-Rez

Well, the main way in which they're "wasteful" is the amount of time it takes to browse them all if you're looking for a specific one. Unless you open the window that shows all of them (which I rarely like to do in this era of tabbed browsing), it can take ages to browse for the one you want. I just timed myself clicking through the full list—it took 15 seconds, and that's WITHOUT taking the time to actually look at which smileys are on each page.

 

They're also poorly organized, visually inconsistent , and redundant. I think the time to cull the less useful smilies (and/or replace them ALL with a visually compatible set) is long overdue.

Those are two entirely irrelevant things. Something isn't wasteful because it takes a long time to view it. It's annoying, yes, when it takes 15 seconds+ to find your smiley, but not wasteful. Maybe it feels like a waste of your time, but I didn't get the impression that Aanchir was implying that.

I think a reorganization would actually be really nice. That's something I would totally advocate for. I do agree that it often takes a while to find a specific smiley. Especially when you miss it like five times before finding it.

-Rez

EDIT: Also, related to your second paragraph, I would say that variety isn't a bad thing. Maybe they are "visually inconsistent," but there are over a hundred different smileys. I personally like the inconsistency, because, as I said, it adds variety. Redundancy is probably unnecessary in the grand scheme of things, but in reality, the percentage of redundant smileys is pretty low. One could say that , , and are redundant because they all use the same face with a different emotion, but since you don't like visual inconsistency, it would probably be irritating to see with a different face than . Seems like visual inconsistency and redundancy can be very contradictory.

Yeah, BZPower has a lot of annoying, stupid, wasteful smilies 

I'm sorry, but how can a smiley be wasteful exactly? It's not like they're taking up much bandwidth or any useful space, so how are they wasteful? Some of them might be annoying or silly, but wasteful is not the right word to use at all.

I personally love having a huge selection of emoticons to choose from. There's a smiley for nearly every common emotion, if not for most uncommon emotions. While some of the smileys might seem a bit spammy when used in certain conversations, it's not like they're really doing any harm. Hardly anyone ever uses the emoticon in place of actually cursing at someone. Usually, it's used in a comedic sense, not intended to put others down. Even if it were, it's better than a paragraph of insults, don't you think?

-Rez

The main thing I'd recommend working on is your mixing and mastering. Some parts get a bit muddy, and there's a lot of frequency overlapping. Try to isolate key frequencies in each sound. It may sound bad solo, but with all the other sounds, you end up getting a much sharper, cleaner sound. Also, try to boost your bass drums and snare a bit. D&B really needs a strong bassline/drumline. Other than that, great work!

-Rez

Happy Birthday, B6! It's crazy how much work you do for the site. Thank you for all your contributions and for keeping this site running! =D Enjoy your day, and eat lots of cake!

-Rez

Notice how in the "Find Content Section" it says, "There have been 11 items by MIY (Search limited from 04-August 13)". I'm not entirely sure why. It might be related to some newer policies and the hacks, as I mentioned.

Some accounts lost more information than others, so you may be one of those. Ultimately, I would have to defer until the staff can explain this better than I can.
 
-Rez

Do you still happen to have the link? You may have misplaced it (the topic, that is). If you do have the link, go ahead and link it here so we can see what the problem is.

Assuming this is an issue, you may want to create a tracker issue about it.

-Rez

There have been multiple server issues, multiple related to malicious attacks on the site. Most of the topics and comments posted within the months of the hackings were lost. :\

-Rez

Honestly, I think a return of Bionicle will bring back a lot of activity to this site. I mean, look at what happened when just a rumor popped up. The activity in the last couple of weeks has been crazy. Topics, comments, etc. are continually getting posted, all in much greater numbers then, say, a month ago. Not saying we're going to see numbers like we did before the downtime, but I think the return of Bionicle will definitely boost activity on BZP.

-Rez

The UDD symbol would be beast. Although, personally I probably wouldn't get one. Mainly because I don't really want a tatoo in the first place.

-Rez

I never said that Lego directly prevents us from allowing discussion of leaked information.

I'm sorry if I made that assumption, but you're initial comment made it sound that way.

It is true that the staff here are attempting to preserve Lego's privacy and prevent people from assuming things about the sets too early; that much can be gained from our leaked content policy, which I've actually been aware of for some time, though I still appreciate that you gave me the benefit of the doubt. The only reason for preventing members here from discussing leaked images is to support Lego's desire to keep them quiet; my point was that the ban, while intended to be helpful to Lego, is practically meaningless to them when the leaks are being talked about all over the internet, including on their own message boards.

 

There have been a few spam posts in this topic, but they've made up a very small portion of what has otherwise been an engaging and vibrant discussion on an topic which holds a lot of significance to our community. There haven't been more than seven spam posts, at most.

No need for sarcasm. I was only citing my source (the Leaked Content Policy), regardless of whether or not you had already seen it.

Of course the leaks are going to get discussed over the internet. LEGO knows that. The point of the ban is to keep an established relationship and cooperation between BZPower and the LEGO corporation. Despite the fact that the leaks are already out there, it's simply an act of good faith from BZPower to LEGO to keep discussion of the leaks isolated to where they're already being discussed.

It's a bit more than a few. Honestly, I would say that at least fifty of the posts in this topic were borderline spam, if not more. Who knows how many were deleted by the staff, anyway.

-Rez

Coming off of that, I think that it's completely ridiculous for us to be forbidden to discuss the leaked set images, numbers, and names that have been spreading all over the internet over the past three and a half weeks. Lego isn't benefiting in any way from the ban that prevents our pitifully tiny community from discussing the leaks; they're already all over Eurobricks, Brickset, Brickipedia, and pretty much every single other forum for Lego or Bionicle discussion in existence, most of which are much larger and important to Lego than we are. They have much more to lose in potential negative publicity and internal secrets on sites such as Eurobricks and Brickset, on which the leaks are being discussed in full force. There's absolutely no reason for the staff here to continue to enforce the old ban on discussing leaked images in light of the revival of Bionicle in 2015. If it were up to me, I'd retire that rule right away.

LEGO doesn't technically ban BZPower from discussing leaks. BZPower bans discussion of leaks because of the points they mention in this topic, BZPower's Leaked Content Policy. Not to mention discussion of leaks causes lots and lots of spam like we've seen in this very topic. 

-Rez

It's not about offending fans, it's all about sales.

No one said that LEGO was purposely trying to offend fans. We're just pointing out that because LEGO is in it for the money, they target a gender-exclusive audience and exclude the other gender. In the end, they probably wouldn't lose any money if they added in more female characters.

-Rez

First response thingy: 

 

The shows don't represent men as being superior to women, they just don't show enough women, and in that way they're showing that men are more important 'cause there's so many more of them that we need to pay attention to. That's the problem of representation. It doesn't just mean "how they are represented" but "how many and how often". The thing about "how can there be a flip side"-- the entire point of having a flip side is that one side is different from the other. Coins can have a shiny side and mucky eroded side. "I treat women just as I would treat any men, and there are plenty of men like me who do the same" -- good for you? This does not suddenly make it irrelevant that there are men who don't treat women the way they should be treated. "Not all men", as you've probably heard a thousand times by now, doesn't mean a thing. EVERYONE KNOW not all men do this or that, nobody is that deluded that they put all men in a box. But it's still men who are doing wrong. Not all of them, but more than enough of them. You really shouldn't treat "I treat women well" as if it's something to be applauded, it's something that's should be expected. Some girls being mean to you isn't oppression. Oppression isn't when you ask to sit at their table and they tell you that boys stink and you should go, oppression is when they tell you you stink and you should go cause you're a boy when you're at a job interview. Your feelings are getting hurt, maybe just because you're a boy, but that's nothing compared to struggling every day to prove your worth and make people see you as a person instead of "just a woman". Like I said before, get some perspective. You may think you're being "oppressed", but you're really not. This is iffy because it's always a case by case basis, but generally you should consider that they are lashing out because they face actual oppression and have the right to try and fight back? Always consider that you may not be in the right and that perhaps they might even be reacting to something that you unintentionally did to make them specifically target you. If you said anything that you said in this response to them, then that's probably your answer. They didn't like it

Fair points. Although I will say that since you don't know whether or not I've actually been oppressed by any women, you're being a bit presumptuous by saying I haven't been.

Octodad's experiences are more authentic than your assumptions of how others feel. Believe it or not, while being a woman doesn't automatically make their opinions right, it does give them a lot of credibility. If a woman is telling you something that a solid majority of other women agree with, and they have firsthand experience to support it, I would listen to what she's saying 'cause she prolly know's what's up.

I tried using this same point here, but I got the response of, "One women doesn't speak for them all." In fact, I got a PM or two regarding that. I'm just slightly confused as to how one woman's point doesn't speak for all women and therefore probably isn't that valuable, but then another woman's point, which doesn't speak for all women, is valuable. Honestly, I would say in both accounts that a woman's opinion on a subject regarding women is valuable, but as I said, I'm confused, because I was reprimanded for saying the same exact thing in another topic, but the flip side applies here.

-Rez