Thanks, will probably make a vol. 2 soon.
Good ole Nixon always knows just when to show up in the thread.
Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VII (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)
- Thread starter BigVic
- Start date
I don't think you (or anyone else) need to remind people of the rules. "Backseat modding" or "mini-modding" is an age old concept on the internet and it has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. Not sure what the position of our mods is on that matter. But my position is if there's a problem which needs to be addressed, the mods will handle it. That's what they're here for and they do their jobs just fine. To do otherwise feels presumptuous to me. I don't think you are helping people avoid getting in trouble, by calling attention to the so-called rule breaking you are doing just the opposite. That's just my opinion on situations like this, of which I have seen many such cases, nothing against you personally.
Technically the rule as written specifically exempts AH image treads from the rule.
Thought I have seen the mods remind people of the rule in AH image threads, so there is that.
Just use common sense
if the 3+ images are in a single short post, it's fine
report it if someone does 10 different posts with five images each in a row
1. Don't insult other members.
No, really. DO NOT insult other members.
2. If you don't like the rules here you are certainly free to post elsewhere. Otherwise you might just want to stay onside for Board Policies that have been around for more than a decade longer than you've been a member.
👍
Actually, @CalBear I was just going to leave it at that as this entire situation is so absurd, but I want to settle things for the future, as otherwise it will inevitably come up again, likely the very short future when someone finds their perfectly fine new post once again a target of this matter.
I would like for you, if you please, to explain to the members of this wikibox thread, if this 3 images a day rule actively applies to a wikibox thread, and if so what is the reasoning behind it. Here are 3 examples [ 1 2 3 ] (all mine, as I don't want to bring anyone else's work into this matter). Even a cursory look at the wikibox threads will reveal to you that more than 3 images are posted routinely and that there has (to my recollection) never been an issue for as long as I've been here. In fact, I found that people react more positively to posts with multiple wikiboxes as they usually tell a larger narrative.
We're talking about single posts, each containing more than 3 wikibox images, not more than 3 posts in a day.
As far as I am aware the rule was made so that people did not spam pages not dedicated to images with a barrage of image posts in a single day. Therefore it wouldn't even apply here. If it does indeed apply to the infobox thread, please explain why it should, and if you find that it shouldn't, please explicitly state it here so there's no issue going forward.
From the site rules:
To reiterate my point once again: This is a non-issue to seemingly everyone except one member that has even explicitly stated he himself does not agree with the rule, and is "being selfish" to demand that other people follow it. His exact words:
I do not find it unreasnable to say that this rule, if indeed even applies here, is pointless and detrimental to the thread. And I think most would agree with me. I hope you will as well.
Last edited:
I get an image limit, but 3 is just such a weirdly low number? Like i'd assume 5, 6, 7 or something large? It's something I've never gotten and I would like the mods to re-look at it at some point because the rule does look like it rarely gets enforced to the point people don't know it's a rule.
While I understand the reasoning behind why a rule limiting the number of images in a post exists(to deter spam), I think it is extremely vague. What exactly is keeping a member from merging all their images into a single one and then posting it? This merged image can be composed of any number of images but would technically be one image. Is that allowed? Conversely, when for example a map with a large legend and/or many auxilliary maps attached to it is posted, is it not possible to argue that there are multiple images on it? You may say that the posted image must be a "cohesive whole" but often on this thread, a sequence of wikiboxes are posted which make up a part or the whole of cohesive narrative. I feel like this rule is only meant to be used when someone is being annoying. Is that okay? I don't really have an opinion to be frank.
The site has a limit of 10 images (it doesn't let one upload more), and I think that's totally fine, as its more of a mechanical restriction and I don't think people are clamoring to post more than that in a single post anyway.
And lets keep in mind, if someone wants to post, for example, a timeline with alternate US presidential elections from 1960 to 1980 (something super common), that's already 6 images. Prohibiting this would make no sense.
I don't see how restricting the number of wikiboxes would make things better For folks here.
As for size, rarely someone posts a gigantic wikibox article that they made which is kind of a big wall of text (famous example is Kanan's New England Timeline which became its own very popular thread later on) and these are usually far more impressive than they're a problem. I'm willing to spend 5 seconds scrolling down on my phone if I don't want to see someoe's hard work over prohibiting someone from post it in the first place.
Yes, if applied here it would be completely arbitrary. One can just put a bunch of wikiboxes into a single image and post that single image, thus circumventing this rule. Problem is, that image will often be too large, just making the whole effort of posting needlessly tiresome.
Yes I completely agree that the rule probably exists only for when someone is spamming a page with a million images in multiple posts (theoretically possible but I've never seen it done). People posts multiple wikiboxes as different images because they're smaller images and made separately, and trying to distinguish between doing that or gluing them all togehter into a single larger image would be the definition of arbitrary.
Wait, I thought Homer was gonna be in Oregon? (Or atleast that's what MatPat told me)"Elbertson takes a different approach to this debate, citing that he's "already lost", he decides to act like a total idiot, walking on stage completely nude and smoking a cigarette."
Funny streamer man does an election game.
There is a legend that when the Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd defeated the Tatars in the Battle of Blue Waters in 1362, and annexed Kiev to Lithuania, he declared: “All Rus' should belong to Lithuania.” And 150 years later, Olgerd’s descendant sat on the throne in Moscow. The irony of history is that it was Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy, an Orthodox Russian Voevode who dedicated his life to the war against the “Litvins”. And in 1666, Dmitry Timofeevich’s successor, Tsar Alexei Nikitich Trubetskoy, would unite Lithuania and Moscow and create the Russian Empire.
from Sergey Chulkov: Trubetskoys: History of a Dinasty, 2002
N.B. 1 OTL Trubetskoy was one of the main contenders for the Monomakh Cap, but loose the Tsar Elections of 1613 to Mikhail Romanov.
N.B. 2 Dmitry I ITTL was Dmitry Donskoy, Grand Duke of Moskow. As in OTL, Russian monarchs started to use the numbers in XVIII century. Dmitry II was nown as Tsar Dmirty Timofeevich during his reign.
You can go to DAv's League: A Writing Prompt Story and Ulysses Orbis' Fictional History of the United States threads for inspiration once you get to make Vol. 2.
small thing for kv, my bf gave me the idea because he is cool and epico
Last edited:
Then he's elected Governor of California in 2026, serves one term as governor beginning the "Markiplier effect" of famous YouTubers seeking elected office, runs for President in 2032, picks Mayor of Raleigh, NC Matthew Patrick as NASA Administrator, picks NC Senator Jimmy Donaldson as Secretary of the Treasury, serves two terms as President of the United States, then returns to YouTube.
Colorado & Missouri
Alaska
Florida
Connecticut
Continuing the state soccer leagues, next up is Wisconsin.
Some notes
A few more mining-based teams in Wisconsin. Like with Galena Desloge in Missouri, Galena Platteville comes from the lead mining in this region, in the Driftless Area. This is also where the Badgers name comes from for La Crosse, as miners were compared to badgers for their digging tunnels. This is also where the general association of badgers with Wisconsin comes from.
Avante Madison is basically me turning Forward Madison into a real club with some history, making it Italian-American. I did consider leaving the stadium as Breese Stevens Field but I decided moving it further south to Brittingham Park made the rivalry with Monona fit better as a south-north city rivalry.
Green Bay Packers SC are indeed owned by Packers Inc. I've generally been avoiding just having teams owned by or directly associated with other major league sports teams, but for Green Bay it seemed fitting enough.
Yes, FC Bayern is a thing. Bavarian United SC, which still exists in OTL, was originally founded in 1929 as "Fussball Club Bayern" and only changed its name to Milwaukee Bavarian SC in 1956. (They actually only renamed from the Bavarians to Bavarian United SC in 2021, but I only saw that line on the wiki page just now so eh history's different after the founding here anyway). All three German teams actually stem from the OTL Bavarian United team. Bayern with their original name, Eintracht meaning "united" in German, and Leinenkugel being a sponsor for the team for one year in which they competed as "Bavarian Leinenkugel" in 1994.
I decided the Superior North End's stadium is next to the Fraser Shipyards, which is why it's known as The Dry Dock.
Also one thing that I possibly could have used before but only realized would work well now, is using the County name for, well, county teams, that might be from smaller towns but drawing a fanbase from the entire county.
Alaska
Florida
Connecticut
Continuing the state soccer leagues, next up is Wisconsin.
Some notes
A few more mining-based teams in Wisconsin. Like with Galena Desloge in Missouri, Galena Platteville comes from the lead mining in this region, in the Driftless Area. This is also where the Badgers name comes from for La Crosse, as miners were compared to badgers for their digging tunnels. This is also where the general association of badgers with Wisconsin comes from.
Avante Madison is basically me turning Forward Madison into a real club with some history, making it Italian-American. I did consider leaving the stadium as Breese Stevens Field but I decided moving it further south to Brittingham Park made the rivalry with Monona fit better as a south-north city rivalry.
Green Bay Packers SC are indeed owned by Packers Inc. I've generally been avoiding just having teams owned by or directly associated with other major league sports teams, but for Green Bay it seemed fitting enough.
Yes, FC Bayern is a thing. Bavarian United SC, which still exists in OTL, was originally founded in 1929 as "Fussball Club Bayern" and only changed its name to Milwaukee Bavarian SC in 1956. (They actually only renamed from the Bavarians to Bavarian United SC in 2021, but I only saw that line on the wiki page just now so eh history's different after the founding here anyway). All three German teams actually stem from the OTL Bavarian United team. Bayern with their original name, Eintracht meaning "united" in German, and Leinenkugel being a sponsor for the team for one year in which they competed as "Bavarian Leinenkugel" in 1994.
I decided the Superior North End's stadium is next to the Fraser Shipyards, which is why it's known as The Dry Dock.
Also one thing that I possibly could have used before but only realized would work well now, is using the County name for, well, county teams, that might be from smaller towns but drawing a fanbase from the entire county.
On November 19, 1963 a Nation already reeling from the Kennedy Assassination faced another shock, as the veil was torn open, and magic revealed to be real, and powerful. The Brethren of the Accursed Stars unleashed a horde of demon-bats over the State of Louisiana, and likely would have destroyed the world had it not been for the efforts of a plucky band of adventurers. The Bureau of the Occult, the Government’s magical enforcement agency was caught flat footed and instantly became a target of scorn. In an effort to gain public trust the Bureau staged a high profile crackdown on various magicians and monsters making their home in New Orleans. However the newfound awareness of magic and magic users meant that the Bureau was now subject to public scrutiny. And legal scrutiny. The ACLU filed habeas corpus motions for all those arrested, although the so-called "Warlock Cases" would not hinge on that issue. Although argued separately they opinions were all authored by Justice Brennan and featured similar breakdowns in Concurrences.
Firstly there was the question of the Bureau's existence. The Bureau of the Occult had been greated via a Secret Executive Order by Theodore Roosevelt after he determined that the semi-Independent Masonic Lodge of the Eye of Providence was insufficient in combating the forced of darkness. However the Warren Court found that this was illegal. The Bureau operated at a far more expansive level than other agencies created by executive order. The fact that the Bureau was only accountable to the President was sharply criticized, and was found to be illegitimate.
The Bureau had long made a habit of regulating American magic users. Registering warlocks, banning certain items, restricting where demons could reside. The liberal Warren Court was in many ways the antithesis of the courts that had struck down New Deal actions in the 1930s on the basis on nondelgation. However this proved another matter entirely. "We need not consider," Justice Brennan wrote. "The extent to which Congress may delegate its power. For in this case there was no delegation, merely usurpation." Although the Court recognized that a regulatory framework was reasonable, it was the domain of Congress, not an unelected Bureau.
The final case involved the Bureau's treatment of a Warlock named Justinian Falmouth. Falmouth was a member of the Church of the Iverted Sepulchre. He had also, in violation of Bureau orders, spoken out against their activites after magic had been revealed. For these reasons alone Bureau wizards stormed Falmouth's home without a warrent, used magic to tear his memories from his mind, and convicted him without trial of unspecfied crimes, and imprisoned him in a hell dimension. This was deemed a violation of fully half of the Bill of Rights. Justice Black's concurrence consisted of his arguments that other facts of the case constituted violations of the other half.
Despite outcry from some quarters about the Warren Court "siding with the Satanists over us" the Warlock Cases proved influential. They combined with public outcry to kill the beleagured Bureau of the Occult, which would be replaced by the Cabinet level "Department of Transcientific Affairs" shortly. They remain key parts of law school curriculums, touching on both seperation of powers and on civil liberties.
Firstly there was the question of the Bureau's existence. The Bureau of the Occult had been greated via a Secret Executive Order by Theodore Roosevelt after he determined that the semi-Independent Masonic Lodge of the Eye of Providence was insufficient in combating the forced of darkness. However the Warren Court found that this was illegal. The Bureau operated at a far more expansive level than other agencies created by executive order. The fact that the Bureau was only accountable to the President was sharply criticized, and was found to be illegitimate.
The Bureau had long made a habit of regulating American magic users. Registering warlocks, banning certain items, restricting where demons could reside. The liberal Warren Court was in many ways the antithesis of the courts that had struck down New Deal actions in the 1930s on the basis on nondelgation. However this proved another matter entirely. "We need not consider," Justice Brennan wrote. "The extent to which Congress may delegate its power. For in this case there was no delegation, merely usurpation." Although the Court recognized that a regulatory framework was reasonable, it was the domain of Congress, not an unelected Bureau.
The final case involved the Bureau's treatment of a Warlock named Justinian Falmouth. Falmouth was a member of the Church of the Iverted Sepulchre. He had also, in violation of Bureau orders, spoken out against their activites after magic had been revealed. For these reasons alone Bureau wizards stormed Falmouth's home without a warrent, used magic to tear his memories from his mind, and convicted him without trial of unspecfied crimes, and imprisoned him in a hell dimension. This was deemed a violation of fully half of the Bill of Rights. Justice Black's concurrence consisted of his arguments that other facts of the case constituted violations of the other half.
Despite outcry from some quarters about the Warren Court "siding with the Satanists over us" the Warlock Cases proved influential. They combined with public outcry to kill the beleagured Bureau of the Occult, which would be replaced by the Cabinet level "Department of Transcientific Affairs" shortly. They remain key parts of law school curriculums, touching on both seperation of powers and on civil liberties.
Now I need to imagine Mark starting a space renaissance duo to being deputy administrator of NASA as well as having his giant YT channel.
Making people interested in space not seen since the Apollo program.
I feel like this would make a pretty cool setting for a D&D campaign lol. Are you making a distinction here between warlocks, wizards and (potentially) sorcerers, or are those just different ways of saying "magic users?"