-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Easy Allies |OT| The New Era
- Thread starter Auctopus
- Start date
- Status
I haven't built any gundam, but I did build a skell from XCX which I assume is basically the same process. It was really easy, just cut pieces out and snap them together (just make sure you follow the order in the directions!). I'm sure there are more complicated sets, but the gundam ones I looked at seemed similar.
the ball i posted earlier is pretty easy because, well, it's a giant ball. a pair of spruce clippers and maybe an exacto knife is about it. if you want an easy way to get a bit fancy they sell lining markets that can easily add a bit more detail to otherwise rather bland plastic parts. sandpaper can be used if you're not great at getting flush cuts off and then clear coats or matte sprays can help with the final look.
I haven't done much building in the last 8-9 years (have 20 gunpla built), but you could start with HG (high grade) sets. They have less pieces, are smaller, still decent quality, and fairly inexpensive so if you make a mistake you won't be out too much money.
To add to Alucrid's post on what utensils you need; what I was taught by a master builder (he built model warships for museums) is that you want to keep ultra fine sandpaper on hand. When joining pieces together the seams arent always even so you want to use the sandpaper to level the 2 sections(when joined) if they're uneven.
Last edited:
eeeeEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!
(The superior Damiani and Brad version)
Man I'm finally catching up on Escapades... this is some next level LOLs here. Love the RP and bless Huber forever.
For further clarification: all discussion of Brandon's appearance in Colin Moriarty's podcast must remain in this thread, as we generally frown upon giving his content a platform. We're opening an exception to that as this one episode is relevant to the Easy Allies community.
Any defense of Colin's previously publicized social views will still not be allowed, however, as they pretty clearly go against our Terms of Service and Rules.
If you have any doubts on this subject, don't hesitate to send me a PM.
Thank you for keeping it civil, everyone.
Any defense of Colin's previously publicized social views will still not be allowed, however, as they pretty clearly go against our Terms of Service and Rules.
If you have any doubts on this subject, don't hesitate to send me a PM.
Thank you for keeping it civil, everyone.
Ian's ever changing dismemberment of the noise is top tier as well.
Thank you for the clarification!
thanks for stepping in and trying to keep this under control. the difference of opinion isnt about whether its okay to be racist or misogynistic. its a difference of opinion on whether colin is racist or misogynistic. i've been saying i think he's an asshole and makes dumb arguments and shouldnt be associated with eza since the start but i should be able to question labelling him a racist or a sexist without myself being labelled a nazi sympathiser, something which has happened to me about 4 or 5 times in this thread. i'm no victim and people can call me what they want but if youre going to take a stand about tolerance and discourse i'd think you should consider that people are making fairly reasonable arguments and are then being labelled a racist. i dont see how thats anything but bullying or toxic or offensive. and you should be able to point this out so moderators can take action on it without people resorting to pejoratives or inferring you dont care about racism or sexism.
as for the colin podcast, i'd recommend listening to it. brandon goes in depth about his thoughts on l&r. he feels like it should revolve around civil discourse even if you dont agree with people. that no matter what you do someone will be offended and that you can only try your best and learn from it. they disagree on how to deal with people when they are offended. colin thinks if he's not meaning to offend but you get offended, then thats on you. brandon thinks if it makes someone feel better, he'd take the hit and apologise. they talk about anxiety and depression. and the success of patreon and eza in general. colin is adamant he's not a racist or sexist. and says he's sorry he brought this controversy onto brandon. brandon says he's ready to step into the criticism and learn from it and that he's ok if he ruffles some feathers. they talk about the feedback concerning the podcast being overwhelmingly positive. they talk about how living in an echo chamber is weird. they talk about how some of the people on resetera live in their own reality and just make up defamatory comments about him that arent true and that he feels like he has to get involved in order to defend himself. brandon says he would just take it on the chin if it was him. colin says he's fine with criticism but the lies arent fine. brandon says he needs to do a better job in communicating himself to those that have an issue with him. he also says he's not perfect at this sort of stuff but that he's learning. colin admits he's brash and that brandon is more kind. colin reiterates that he's fine with people living their own lives. gender, race, etc etc. he's fine with it. he says he's sorry that brandon copped some of the flack for being associated with him. he said that by and large eza fans are good people. brandon says going forward he's looking to engage further and go deeper on these issues with people in the community. colin says he has an issue with people threatening brandon with their financial support. brandon says he's proud of people removing their support and exercising their voices. and he hopes in the future both communities can come together via gaming. jones said zelda is his goty. and colin thinks horizon.
But that's the thing: we've made our official stance on Colin Moriarty pretty clear since, I think, the first week of these boards. There's a reason his content is banned. You talk about tolerance - a big part of tolerance is not letting intolerance run amok.
You're obviously free to hold your own personal views on this subject, but relativization of the stuff Colin has said in the past simply isn't a discussion that's welcome here, as doing so would be hurtful to all of the minorities who are starting to think of these boards as a new home.
Please refer to my latest red post above as well, that I believe you may have missed while typing.
"Any defense of Colin's previously publicized social views will still not be allowed, however, as they pretty clearly go so against our Terms of Service and Rules."
——-
Just so we're clear...you're saying we're not allowed to present an opinion that colin isn't actually a sexist or racist. That's just generally accepted fact that is infallible? Wow. I guess I'll just see myself out because that's just absurd.
——-
Just so we're clear...you're saying we're not allowed to present an opinion that colin isn't actually a sexist or racist. That's just generally accepted fact that is infallible? Wow. I guess I'll just see myself out because that's just absurd.
^^^ yes, it's the board's stance. For better or worse. Obviously most people here feel for better, but it is what it is.
In case it wasn't clear, my suggestions for the source of the Damiani hate were tongue-in-cheek. The Nier one is another that people freaked out about... (I could rail a bit on Nier:A here, but I won't!)
Thanks for the write-up.
That summary just makes me all the more disappointed that Jones decided to go on that show.
He's never attempted to back away from his racist or sexist statements so why should there be any debate about it?
I'll wait to hear from a less biased source, but this is honestly worse than I was expecting. It reminds me of that absurd video of Boogie saying we should meet in middle and learn from a white supremacist(Jontron). Sure, it's great that Brandon encourages people to vote with their wallet if they feel they need to, but coming together via gaming sounds an awful lot like "keep politics out of my gaming!".
listen to the actual source. dont take my paraphrasing as verbatim. i just very quickly noted what i thought they were talking about.
Lol my bad. I was thinking it was tongue-in-cheek but only the Oklahoma fan part was.
Sorry, that was rude. You took the time to take notes for others who wouldn't/can't listen. Thanks for that.
This user was suspended for 1 week for this post. Promotion of piracy is against our Terms of Service.
I've been passing his podcast around on my own private gdrive account if you want to hear this farce with your own ears.
Totally and completely loss of respect for Jones here. Read: not EZA, just Jones.
Totally and completely loss of respect for Jones here. Read: not EZA, just Jones.
I haven't heard it, I've been at work since it went live. I've just been passing it around for people who want to listen but not give clicks or money to the guy.
Thank you for posting this.
I agree with Brandon about civil discourse. In my opinion an important distinction between their two approaches is that Brandon approaches self-improvement and respecting others in good faith. I can't buy into Colin's argument as something sincere. He is too smart to truly believe the offended person is culpable for offensive actions of another. That logic is the same flawed logic which would imply harassment victims are responsible for being harassed if the harasser didn't mean to upset them. It's the repeated pattern of denial of wrongdoing and disingenuous, inflammatory messages that sometimes frustrates me about Colin.
In any case, it's done now. It's about as bad as I thought it could go, in that Colin co-opted the podcast to make it about the controversy itself and he was not held to account for his past actions. But so it goes. I hope this brings in new supporters for EZA to help reach some of the higher Patreon tiers. Maybe through this community we can come to mutually understand each other.
Dineren, Alucrid, and Umibozu, thank you for the help. I really appreciate this.
Okay Umibozu, being taught by a master builder is so cool.
I think we are pass the point of opinions since it's apparent one side is being maliciousness about keeping their status quo alive and using "perspective" as a smoke screen to smoke anyone out who is against that status quo.
Like, it's now a problem of actions that create victims than just "talking".
Like, it's now a problem of actions that create victims than just "talking".
Wow he actually went on the podcast? I thought people had convinced Jones not to do it.
Extremely dissapointed in Jones. So much for L&R lmao
Extremely dissapointed in Jones. So much for L&R lmao
Great post. You nail it.
Listening to the podcast gives him the win. Also to get the podcast you have to have paid for his content. I guess stealing from Colin Moriarty is OK with the forum moderators.
Wait, is this really a "terms of service and rules" for this site? Seems ridiculous
The dude's last name isn't even worth mentioning.
There's enough evidence and personal accounts to confirm that he has turned his existence into a terms of service and rules violation.
Yes, defense of transphobic and sexist remarks are against the terms of service. Is that really such a surprise you used your first post to question it?
Thank you for this post, and all of the mods trying to maintain civility here.
just so we're clear, calling someone or inferring that someone is a nazi/racist just because you disagree with them is tolerated on here? and not considered toxic in any way?
lol cmon dude.
i'd urge everyone thats 'lost all respect for jones' based on my quick summary to at least listen to the podcast first. maybe it didnt come across in my writing but i personally felt the tone was good. they disagreed on quite a lot of stuff but it was civil. and i think that that is an important lesson for some people on here.
The moral gymnasitcs going on in here is truly absurd. So Colin is a definite racist and sexist and even trying to defend it is not allowed and somehow clearly against the ToS, yet theft and piracy, both of which are actual criminal offences are OK?
Not to mention that the whole argument was not to give Colin a platform so most definitely not wanting to listen to his podcast (yet you somehow got it even though it's Patron exclusive atm), yet you still are promoting it by sharing it around and will eventually listen to it yourself anyway, meaning all you found wrong was that he was monetising his content in some form and as long as you took that away then it's perfectly fine. And this is supposed to be the 'right' or 'good' side of this controversy?
Surely the absurdity of all of this is obvious.
So, I'm just a guy who posts, and I may or may not grasp the real rules, but the way I'd explain Era's stance in as neutral a way as I can is:
* there are certain hard line stances we (as a board) take to successfully curtail abuse, particularly on social issues. These stances have the effect of suppressing one side of the discourse around those issues, but we accept that as ok because we consider so much of that side's discourse to be "discourse" in name only: that is, destructive, toxic, abusive, etc. Nothing is ever perfect, echo chambers are not ideal, but we are willing to sacrifice this (we think) small percentage of discussion on these issues to prevent getting bogged down in unending mudfights over it.
* Colin is one such figure whose dubious stances -- whether genuine, of convenience (to build a loyal fanbase), or out of simple stubborn assholery -- in any case make him a lightning rod for this kind of "discourse", some of which he peddles, and all of which is -- as noted above -- not part of the acceptable material for this video game message board. Ergo, no Colin talk either
Basically: rules of the road.
Disclaimer: just my mental model. I am not a lawyer. Ask your doctor before taking viagra. Etc
The part where he has espoused sexist and racist views. His tweets on Asians was blatantly racist and pretty indefensible.
Ergh.... I guess? Like I get what you're saying but disagree.
In fear of being banned from this new awesome site, I'm gonna keep my comments light. But, like, you know he doesn't espouse sexist and racist views, right?
Give me a break, go back a few pages and read his own words. This isn't some big secret.
The fundamental problem with Colin is that he is mean. He is antagonistic, spiteful, and he engages in various forms of harassment. It's why you should always be wary about choosing to die on a hill in defense of internet celebrities, because they often turn out to be unpleasant people. It's not difficult to treat people kindly, but that's apparently too hard for Colin.
I do however, want to point out that ERA's ToS is quite vague. Everything seems to hinge upon P. "Abusing or harassing of other users, including but not limited to the posting of racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic content". I have the uneasy feeling that this means whatever moderators want it to mean. I like clarity. I'm a big fan of really longwinded rulebooks where everything is laid out explicitly and everyone knows where they stand. ERA's ToS should be rewritten at some point with clear examples of acceptable and non-acceptable conduct so that everyone is on the same page and there isn't this feeling that these rules are malleable and intentionally vague in order to allow them to be applied selectively. The section about "abusing and harassing other users" very conspicuously omits "based on religion or political belief or ethnicity etc, etc". Most codes of conduct explicitly mention those classes. ERA's doesn't. We haven't had a real blowup here on ERA yet, but sooner or later we're going to end up with one of those situations where black celebrities are being called Uncle Toms, for example, and how is ERA going to respond to that? Is calling a black conservative an Uncle Tom a violation of the ToS? Looking at it, I can't tell. It's arguably both racist and an attack on them for being conservative. I'd like to think it would at least get a warning. ERA doesn't even have a rule against personally attacking other users, which is... frankly odd.
I do however, want to point out that ERA's ToS is quite vague. Everything seems to hinge upon P. "Abusing or harassing of other users, including but not limited to the posting of racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic content". I have the uneasy feeling that this means whatever moderators want it to mean. I like clarity. I'm a big fan of really longwinded rulebooks where everything is laid out explicitly and everyone knows where they stand. ERA's ToS should be rewritten at some point with clear examples of acceptable and non-acceptable conduct so that everyone is on the same page and there isn't this feeling that these rules are malleable and intentionally vague in order to allow them to be applied selectively. The section about "abusing and harassing other users" very conspicuously omits "based on religion or political belief or ethnicity etc, etc". Most codes of conduct explicitly mention those classes. ERA's doesn't. We haven't had a real blowup here on ERA yet, but sooner or later we're going to end up with one of those situations where black celebrities are being called Uncle Toms, for example, and how is ERA going to respond to that? Is calling a black conservative an Uncle Tom a violation of the ToS? Looking at it, I can't tell. It's arguably both racist and an attack on them for being conservative. I'd like to think it would at least get a warning. ERA doesn't even have a rule against personally attacking other users, which is... frankly odd.
Discussion of piracy is actually prohibited in the ToS, for what it's worth. But I guess in a gaming forum the definition of "piracy" tends to be a little... fluid because users invariably end up in a lot of grey areas. I guess it's a really hard call. I don't blame envy the mods trying to come up with a clear interpretation of that rule.
He was banned for a week above, there probably isn't much debate about someone offering actual pirated content.
(sees the ban for piracy )Way to jump to conclusions.
Gimme the defense I've only seen people ignoring all examples provided and then come in here drive by post variations of "I don't care I don't have any problems with Colin", "people are hating on him for no reason, him being an asshole doesn't justify calling him racist or sexist", "he's a good dude I believe it", etc etc.
Gimme the post that debunks all the shit he's said on twitter. Cause that would be the real moral gymnastics.
The fundamental problem with Colin is that he is mean. He is antagonistic, spiteful, and he engages in various forms of harassment. It's why you should always be wary about choosing to die on a hill in defense of internet celebrities, because they often turn out to be unpleasant people. It's not difficult to treat people kindly, but that's apparently too hard for Colin.
I do however, want to point out that ERA's ToS is quite vague. Everything seems to hinge upon P. "Abusing or harassing of other users, including but not limited to the posting of racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic content". I have the uneasy feeling that this means whatever moderators want it to mean. I like clarity. I'm a big fan of really longwinded rulebooks where everything is laid out explicitly and everyone knows where they stand. ERA's ToS should be rewritten at some point with clear examples of acceptable and non-acceptable conduct so that everyone is on the same page and there isn't this feeling that these rules are malleable and intentionally vague in order to allow them to be applied selectively. The section about "abusing and harassing other users" very conspicuously omits "based on religion or political belief or ethnicity etc, etc". Most codes of conduct explicitly mention those classes. ERA's doesn't. We haven't had a real blowup here on ERA yet, but sooner or later we're going to end up with one of those situations where black celebrities are being called Uncle Toms, for example, and how is ERA going to respond to that? Is calling a black conservative an Uncle Tom a violation of the ToS? Looking at it, I can't tell. It's arguably both racist and an attack on them for being conservative. I'd like to think it would at least get a warning. ERA doesn't even have a rule against personally attacking other users, which is... frankly odd.
Discussion of piracy is actually prohibited in the ToS, for what it's worth. But I guess in a gaming forum the definition of "piracy" tends to be a little... fluid because users invariably end up in a lot of grey areas. I guess it's a really hard call. I don't blame envy the mods trying to come up with a clear interpretation of that rule.
isn't that point P? "abusing or harassing other users, including but not limited..." etc. ultimately a TOS is a only a tool and it's up to whether or not you have faith in the site's staff to wield appropriately.
Podcast was too short and had finite content.
The ban happened after I replied.
did you use the convenient report feature to alert a moderator to the infraction?
I'm saying give people time to react before making such a jump in conclusion. I'm looking at the times and honestly it's ridiculous at least leave people 2 hours to react before pulling out the pitchfork on them.
- Status