Jump to content

Wazdakka

Members
  • Posts

    1,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wazdakka

  1.  

    I agree with the points made about the Skrall and Tuma.

     

    In addition, I never understood how the Makuta in 2008 were able to face off against mere Toa. The Makuta should have slaughtered the Toa with ease. I get that they were toying with them, trying to lure them into the Plan, but it still feels funny. 

     

    Indeed if it wasn't for that and the fact that GregF used the flash in the core caused by mata nui's revival as a Deus Ex Machina reason for the makuta were weakened including blinding half their team, rest of them crashed into the swamp and were mutated and of top of that all 6 of them lost acces to most of their abilities, such as krika feeding off energy to remain tangible.

     

     

    Wait, what? I thought only the mutated Makuta lost some powers; the rest were just blinded. Even then... the sheer power at their fingertips...

  2. To be honest, I don't actually know the details of what happened and where precisely the leaks came from. I was just happy to jump on the hate train. If it came from LEGO in any manner, then it's legitimate. I acknowledge my misstep. 

     

    Bionicles though!

     

    Do you think that we might see the 2015 winter and summer waves go on clearance prior to the upcoming 2016 sets?

  3. I'd be on Tuyet's side.

    Betraying her at the last possible second, obtaining the Nui Stone for myself, and eventually becoming the real villain of the story would just be too great of an opportunity to pass up. :evilgrin:

    You do realize she is the most powerful character in the Toa Empire Bionicle Universe? 

     

    Just offing her might be kinda tough. A for effort though!

    • Upvote 1
  4.  

    Also, reliable: "consistently good in quality or performance," "dependability of result," and "able to be believed : likely to be true or correct". Pedantic? Yes. But a source who provides correct information would technical be reliable. "Officially sanctioned and not blatantly outside of LEGO's release terms" is not "reliable". Perhaps we should pick a different word.

    Is that really the sticking point here?  The use of "reliable" outside of its strict dictionary definition?  A definition which wouldn't even apply to leaked information anyway, since even if they are, say, actual preliminary images of sets they are still preliminary and not necessarily representative of the official product.  Part of why they're meant to be confidential in the first place is because they're not reliable.

     

    But if you think it's really that confusing, then talk to the administration and see if there's some clarification that could be made instead of posting here about nonexistent "double standards".  Personally I've been wanting a rewrite of the leak policy for a while just to make it absolutely 100% clear so people don't lose their minds whenever Gata finds a Mask of Creation image on Shop@Home or whatever and start crying "hypocrisy!"  But I have a mind like a sieve so I always forget to brings these sorts of things up.

     

    Anyway that last episode was pretty great huh.  Onua and Lewa still have the best dynamic.

     

    A source who provides a leaked image that ends up being correct would be reliable. That's what I'm trying to get at. And I didn't say I was confused; I just said that's not what the word means. 

    • Upvote 1
  5.  

    To be even more precise I'm the guy who at first leaked sets on a forum I can't name but most of you know :^)

    while I was doing that, on 4chan Black Six kept on telling I was a liar. Looks like he was wrong :^)))))

    You do realize that 4chan is the bottomless abyss that destroys all goodness in the world? It's the very abyss Batman avoids at all costs. It's filled with liars, fakes, phonies, and worst of all *gasp* opportunists. 

     

    I'm not a 4channer, but I feel like that's just rude to negatively generalize the site and its users like that. 

     

    Also, reliable: "consistently good in quality or performance," "dependability of result," and "able to be believed : likely to be true or correct". Pedantic? Yes. But a source who provides correct information would technical be reliable. "Officially sanctioned and not blatantly outside of LEGO's release terms" is not "reliable". Perhaps we should pick a different word. 

  6. The news story was well within the lines of the leak policy.  The set names were from an official source (Amazon), and when it was confirmed that they were not meant to be shared publicly the information was removed.

     

    "If the images or information were not officially released by LEGO or a reliable source, they cannot be posted on BZPower. Discussion of new sets and other information can wait until they are officially announced by LEGO or through its partners." What dictates a reliable source? Previously decried leaks have been proven correct, so they would be reliable. Double standard, yes?

×
×
  • Create New...