Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Serack

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93
1366
DF Reference Collection / Re: Questions Specifically for Jim, Part 3
« on: September 10, 2010, 01:25:08 PM »
2 questions (I haven't read the whole topic)

Did you come up with the Knights of the Cross, the Denarians/Lash, and the 3 distinct vampire courts with your initial overall story arc, or did you come up with them as you fleshed out the individual books?

Also, is it possible for a mortal to utilize hellfire/soulfire without demonic/holy patronage?

Edit: changed 2nd question to be more broad...

1367
Display Case / Re: Ultimate Jim Butcher Interviews Master List Part I & II
« on: September 09, 2010, 03:11:37 PM »
Oh my.  This is an old interview + Q&A session from 2009, but it's not linked here for newbies like me and I am really enjoying the read so I'm posting it for the "Ultimate interview list"

April 29th 2009 Bitten by Books interview and internet Q&A session.
http://bittenbybooks.com/?p=6529

1368
Site Suggestions & Support / Re: My profile (Why is my email addy showing)
« on: September 07, 2010, 07:38:18 PM »
those rules are in and I would guess for another "board" other than the DF spoiler one.

Not precisely. Look at the path displayed at the top of that link's page:

Quote
Jim-Butcher.Com Community > The Dresden Files > DF Books > This is a NO SPOILERS zone

After the "couple of weeks" (always err on the side of caution), it's not IMPERATIVE that you write "Changes spoilers"... but it's still a nice thing to do for the year following the book's release, until the next book comes out. For that matter, it's a nice thing to do, period; we get plenty of new enthusiasts joining these boards over time, and not all of them have yet completed reading the entire series.

Ok revisiting this because I tried to mention these rules to someone else else in the spoilers forum and they obviously were confused.

The path Shecky quoted goes to the DF Books board.  The board that I was talking about needing a rules refresher is the DF Spoilers board

Quote
Jim-Butcher.Com Community > The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers > Changes...Early Spoiler Rules

Since the only spoiler rules specified in the DF Spoiler board are now apparently outdated, and the only rules that define a spoiler (and therefore when spoiler tags/masking are needed) are in a different board, it invites confusion like this poster displayed when I tried to remind them of rules that arn't even posted in the board I am trying to help him apply them to:

P.S. if you are responding to a topic that doesn't say spoiler in the title you should generally put spoiler tags on anything that reveals details from anything not already out in paperback.
?

I have no issue with spoiler tagging and such.  I think they are a great tool that should be used and enforced.  However, as a newbie that is only now learning the ropes for said spoilerage tagging, I feel that the rules as they are being enforced, arn't defined very well for/in the DF Spoiler forum.

1369
Display Case / Re: Ultimate Jim Butcher Interviews Master List Part I & II
« on: September 03, 2010, 01:13:10 PM »
Ack, what have I done?  I like the side topic, but I'm going to try to redirect, and hope this topic sticks to mostly links to new JB goodies :D

1370
This gets so much win

JB keeps saying that he enjoyed writing the Dinosaur the best, but I wonder if you put the question in this context if he would have the same answer.

1371
Just realized that the Bitten by Books Q&A session wasn't linked in here.

http://bittenbybooks.com/?p=22804

This one is a double bonus, in that it has an interview near the top of the page.  Then towards the bottom of the page is a log of a 4 hour chat Q&A session with the man himself chocked full of great answers.


1372
Site Suggestions & Support / Re: Topic Decay question
« on: August 25, 2010, 03:33:14 PM »
Right, no disagreement there, so... how does that disagree with "it belongs with WoJ anyway, don't you think?"

lol I'm not even sure what is unclear anymore which may create a comunications paradox and disrupt the linguistic continuum or something.

I pointed out the quote just to point out the quote as another potential WoJ that clarified an earlier summarized WoJ.  No disagreement... I think.

1373
Site Suggestions & Support / Re: Topic Decay question
« on: August 25, 2010, 03:14:25 PM »
Okay, it's still WoJ, summarized or otherwise. I guess what I was asking was your point in quoting Laura's post.

I guess the point is, if the Summary is WoJ, than Laura's post should be treated as such (and thus preserved as such) too.

Edit:  To my knowledge untill today, all the WoJ topics preserved in that board (other than the twitter post, which still is, just in another forum), were litteral posts by the man himself.  Saving the Q&A as WoJ, I agree is viable, it just opens new ground, so I was pointing out Laura's post too.

1374
Site Suggestions & Support / Re: Topic Decay question
« on: August 25, 2010, 02:38:51 PM »
Not sure what this has to do with things in the WoJ board.

The topic that Priscilla just added to WoJ was a summary of Q&A's.  The quote above is a more detailed version of a particular Q&A in that summary now in the WoJ board.

1375
Site Suggestions & Support / Re: Display Case Contenders
« on: August 25, 2010, 02:34:36 PM »
using this space for some suggestions as you recomended :)

The Q&A thread that was just moved to WoJ has a second Q&A session quoted on the second page that I didn't even know about for weeks after reading the first one in the OP, so I highly recomend editing the bottom of the OP to direct people to:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,11734.msg538824.html#msg538824

EDIT:  Ack, there is another Q&A session posted on page 22 Post 321 from Lee's summit.  I have to wonder if there are more I'm missing (kermit the frog arm wavy thingy while running around screaming)
EDIT2: Another Q&A session posted on page 16 Post 228

Additionally, although this topic hasn't been locked by the board yet as the instructions for this topic imply being necessisary for nomination, but... Laura118b did a through clarification on what was actually said for the last question listed in the above link.  Quoting here, and the quote has a link to the post.

I can answer to the veracity of the second quote, I asked him the question :)
The full question was if he had stated in the past, during an interview, that Elaine also was a candidate to have the potential to wield power over Outsiders.  His longer answer was yes, he had said that before, that Harry and Elaine are just a few months apart age wise so for all intensive purposes the same age.  He then told me that was one of the reasons that Justin had picked both of them to adopt, it wasn't just random kids with power.  The key word in my question and his answer was potential.

I mostly asked this to settle a debate around here.  A handful of us remembered reading the interview but none of us could find it anymore, so some other members wondered if it had ever been said or was just an example of people reading others saying it so often they thought they had really read it.  So I asked him to settle the debate once and for all. ;)

URL for direct link

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,20644.msg905136.html#msg905136

I don't know how you might chose to handle this, but I recomend editing the 2nd Q&A post in the now WoJ'd topic to include the above quote.

1376
Site Suggestions & Support / Re: Topic Decay question
« on: August 25, 2010, 02:24:15 PM »
It belonged with WoJ regardless, don't you think?

I've been quoting it as WoJ.  However it is a summary so I don't consider it 100% word for word cannon.

You've read my topic where the origional asker of one of the questions wrote:

I can answer to the veracity of the second quote, I asked him the question :)
The full question was if he had stated in the past, during an interview, that Elaine also was a candidate to have the potential to wield power over Outsiders.  His longer answer was yes, he had said that before, that Harry and Elaine are just a few months apart age wise so for all intensive purposes the same age.  He then told me that was one of the reasons that Justin had picked both of them to adopt, it wasn't just random kids with power.  The key word in my question and his answer was potential.

I mostly asked this to settle a debate around here.  A handful of us remembered reading the interview but none of us could find it anymore, so some other members wondered if it had ever been said or was just an example of people reading others saying it so often they thought they had really read it.  So I asked him to settle the debate once and for all. ;)

With reguards to the "summarized" Q&A from the now WoJ'd thread:
Quote
Q:  Is Elaine another candidate to wield power over Outsiders (the way Harry supposedly is)?
A:  Yes.  There’s a reason Justin picked the two of them.

I may make use of Priscillie's display case contenders for that WoJ clarification though.  Although the sticky does say to nominate it after it's been locked.

1377
Site Suggestions & Support / Re: Topic Decay question
« on: August 25, 2010, 02:09:20 PM »
Thanks for the heads-up!  I've moved it to the "Word of Jim" board, which doesn't decay.  You can nominate threads for preservation in the Display Case Contenders sticky.

So would it have "decayed"?

Edit:  Btw I like how the old link in the ultimate interview colleciton thread goes to the new location.

1378
Not precisely. Look at the path displayed at the top of that link's page:

After the "couple of weeks" (always err on the side of caution), it's not IMPERATIVE that you write "Changes spoilers"... but it's still a nice thing to do for the year following the book's release, until the next book comes out. For that matter, it's a nice thing to do, period; we get plenty of new enthusiasts joining these boards over time, and not all of them have yet completed reading the entire series.

I guess the reason why I mentioned it is because, as one of these newbies (gradually growing up though) I was headily impressed with the mod's desire that spoilers be labled, but couldn't quite understand the current requirements considering the first few weeks described in the rules for spoiler tags had gone by.

I had found the topic quoted above by Magnus, but it's in the spoiler free zone, so it made their application in the spoiler ok zone ambiguous to me. 

From the outside coming in, it is my estimation that the boards used to have a system of labels and segregation that the mods heavily enforced.  Then new tools came out (the spoiler mask), making the old system a little obsolite, but the integration of the 2 systems seems to have caused some ambiguity in the system as a whole (from the perspective of a newb).

1379
Site Suggestions & Support / Topic Decay question
« on: August 25, 2010, 12:29:38 PM »
I've seen it floating around, and I have no problem with, the fact that topics that haven't been active for 30 days get auto locked to prevent topic necromancy (good thing imo).  I have also seen mod's mention something about such locked topics being deleted 90 days later but I am not sure if that trait is specific to certian "boards" like the more social ones.

The reason why I am concerned about this, is that in the DF spoilers board, the ultimate interview compilation stickie has replies with links to additional in board topics that are our only record of certain JB interviews/Q&A sessons, and they have not been replied to since May 1st and it would be a crying shame if these were to "decay" and be deleted so I was hoping someone would clarify this policy for me in hopes that my concerns will be aleviated.

The one (link in sticky to a locked thread) that brought this to my attention is:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,7822.msg543639.html#msg543639

1380
Taken from here: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18.0.html

those rules are in and I would guess for another "board" other than the DF spoiler one.

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93