RIP Devi's Console

[Harakiri]

Around the time I stopped posting here this was starting I come back to see it this place still exists and it's failed... I can't believe it took so long for this failure to come full circle.

[SynapticGroove]

Why not consult some or all of the backers before making the effort public domain?  Maybe one or more of them were builders we had a vested interest in designing carts and, coupled with a decent understanding of how Kickstarter works, could've taken the reigns and made the overall effort viable or, at the very least, gotten every backer what their pledge entailed and keep the communication lines open?

Now that Dwarfcraft owns Devi Ever: Fx, why wouldn't they take over the project and realize it to fruition?

Customer service is one of the few areas that is absolutely crucial to be stellar at.  The Console seemed like a great initiative in 2012, but, sadly, turned out completely anticlimatic in 2013.  It's a great example of a customer service failure, in my opinion.

Either way, I hope a DIYer builds Console I or II and reports how it turned out.  It might be a wonderful idea or completely unfeasible for use.

On a different, but Kickstarter-related topic, is anyone checking out the OWL unit? OWL Programmable Pedal

[V]

There are no special pots in it anyway. All just 100k linear it seems

[BrentMpls]

100kb controls for everyone!

[V]

I think that is actually my least used pot value

[Player99]

---

V wrote:

I think that is actually my least used pot value

---

 

What kind of pot do you value?

[V]

C2K is dreamy

[V]

The way to avoid the gender issue is to call this person she

[captain insane-o]

I am not familiar enough with the person to completely understand the situation (if, for example, the person even withes to ascribe to definite 2-state gender classification or identifies on  a continuum or prefers non-clasification)
.

for example, I did notice that the person did recently make a personal rendering in both male and female forms. 

Since I am not in personal contact with this person (nor do I intend to be), I do try to avoid over use of gender-descriptive personal pronouns
It is a less-typical situation to be sure, but given the already-charged social environment, I though it prudent if somewhat stilted.

[V]

Devi is typically called she and identified as a woman or trsnswoman.

[captain insane-o]

---

V wrote:

Devi is typically called she and identified as a woman or trsnswoman.

---

 

Due to the the charged nature of the issues, I personally hesitate to rely on what the person is typically called (by others).  For example, the born- vs trans- issue could also be sensitive as could be if the person identifies with a single gender polarity.

 

 

Fortunately, "this person" functions to impersonalizes the entire situation (it isn't intended to soley address gender-identity,) so that we may look at the fact pattern itself and so at least partially obviates the issue..

 

 

[V]

Actually that just draws attention to the issue. Like if I insisted on calling you "that individual" it would be obvious that I was intentionally avoiding your name or gender for a reason and that would be kind of similar to referring to a group of black people as "those people". Devi considers herself a she. She refers to when she looked like a male as the dark times. She is trying to get vaginoplasty. It's pretty obvious which direction she has taken. Now I have lost respect for her in general because of her behavior but I don't think that is cause to avoid using her preferred gender.

And besides which, the way our language works, depersonalization aligns someone with objecthood. If I called you it, you would have a problem with that, I think. This is because our brains associate it with animals and nonsentience.

[BHz_econo]

 

[Harakiri]

This has to be the 9,000th internet debate on gender pronouns stemming from discussion of Devi...

[BrentMpls]

Guys you're arguing about whether its appropriate to call someone with a pen is that fleeced the internet out of 40k she or not on Christmas Eve. 

 

Let's try not to forget the true meaning of Christmas shall we:

and most importantly: 

[V]

I mean, we could call Bernie Madoff she I guess too if you want

[captain insane-o]

---

V wrote:

Actually that just draws attention to the issue. Like if I insisted on calling you "that individual" it would be obvious that I was intentionally avoiding your name or gender for a reason and that would be kind of similar to referring to a group of black people as "those people".

 

As I previously have stated, gender identity is only one of the issues.

 

Devi considers herself a she.

 

As I have not had personal contact with this person, I would not be able to tell. As previously stated, a personal rendering in both male and female form was recently posted.

 

She is trying to get vaginoplasty. It's pretty obvious which direction she has taken

 

This can be extremely dangerous as it suggests that external morphology must imply not only gender identity but also assumes binary gender identity. which, while common,  is not necessarily the case.

It is just these sorts of assumptions that I endeavor to avoid

 

. Now I have lost respect for her in general because of her behavior but I don't think that is cause to avoid using her preferred gender.

 

my avoiding the gender issue is intended as a sign of sensitivity to the issue.  Again, I have not had contact with the individual (and so only hear of preference through others) and, as noted above is an issue of quite some discussion

However, as I have already noted, there is another reason I use the mode I do.

 

And besides which, the way our language works, depersonalization aligns someone with objecthood.

 

It is an unfortunate artifact of English (which does not necessarily exist in all languages), one that is subject to various efforts to correct. 

However, English does have avenues, such as the one I use, to put focus elsewhere.

 

If I called you it, you would have a problem with that, I think. This is because our brains associate it with animals and nonsentience.

 

---

 

I am unsure if I would have a problem, it would depend on context - if one were to use the language to de-humanize, that could be an issue.  If one were to use the language to deperaonalize - this would be a non-issue.

I would,  NOT have problems with humanized depersonalization such as "party", "individual", "person", etc when describing me or even non-human-specific references such as "the operator" or the "agent" with relation to my activities (as opposed to the whole of my identity).

Would I, for example, be comfortable with you calling me "the party who comments on legal issues in this thread?" - yes, I would.

 

 

 

 

[m_Calavera]

petition to add "this person" to the word filter

 

[soapbladder]

---

m_Calavera wrote:

petition to add "this person" to the word filter

 

---

I'll get right on that.  

 

 

[coloringpad]

Hey guys....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Console.