Originally posted by yahkehbu @ 5/6/2017

How about a PJ update where users can set the initial zoom for individual pieces, then everyone just uploads 1x.

Originally posted by king_bobston @ 5/6/2017

That's a great idea, I like it.

Let's wait until sedge implements it.

Oh wait, nvm..

(I do like the idea though, just PJ usually doesn't get upgrades like these)

Originally posted by pyrometal @ 5/6/2017

I intend to implement these types of enhanced zoom features in my current project

Originally posted by EdJr @ 5/7/2017

@yahkehbu: I like your idea, but as we sadly know there's no reason to be hoping to see anything new in PJ.... Do you think it would be useful as a feature in FJ?

@pyrometal: That's interesting! Do you mind if I ask a few questions? First of all, I hope whatever I say doesn't demotivate you; it's obviously just my opinion (and please express any disagreements).

Do you have any specific goals with the site? (Do you intend to make some kind of "PJ Plus" - same logic, plus cool features -, or something different)? I've considered creating a new website as well, mainly to follow PJ's model and improve on it, but I honestly don't see it as a good idea. I mean, PJ's infrastructure may be lacking, but the community is what makes it. It's incredibly hard to build a community for the long run, especially if there's already one somewhere else. People rarely - as far as I know - stick to two sites with similar purposes for too long. If they're already used to one of them, they'll most likely just stay there, even if the alternative is exceptionally good. If lots of people are already on the old site, the simplest approach is probably to attract newbies, but the "most effective" is probably to attract the most active users from the old one. Assuming you can actually do that, one of two things will very likely happen: They will lose interest on the new one after some time; or they will leave the old one. Depending on the proportion of "migrations", this could mean something tremendously harmful to the original community. Some might see it as a good thing if they think the new one is superior and everyone should move there anyway, but since nobody ever agrees on everything, the "migration" process may not be very fast and stay "incomplete", effectively resulting in two weaker, fragmented communities. Of course I'm painting this with as broad a brush as I can, but that's basically what I've seen happen with many communities. In short, I may be taking this too much on the emotional side, but I wouldn't like to see PJ die :(

Sorry for talking so much, but I'm genuinely curious about your project :)

Anyway, may be naive, but that's kinda why I chose to just keep updating my extension. I still hope that someday sedge will hear my prayers and actually accept direct help from the community with coding. By the way, since it's been so long since the last time I whined here, has anyone tried to talk to him lately about this stuff? His fax machine seems to have stopped working after the thousandth letter I sent.

I'm too sleepy to be sure that what I just typed makes any sense.

Originally posted by pyrometal @ 5/7/2017

Yes, I was aiming at a "PJ Plus" type of experience for this project.

To be honest, the thoughts you expressed about potentially fragmenting the community and hard road to adoption are ones that I have as well. As eishyia stated in the forum posts, it would be fantastic if this site could be PJ's direct successor, retaining the same name. I would then be able to port all of PJs data over with minimal impact to the community . This is something I plan on negotiating with sedge in the future once closer to completion. I have his email address

Might you be interested in joining me in the development at some point? Probably still too early for now since the structure is barely established and am still focusing on look and feel aspects.

Originally posted by Theoden @ 5/8/2017

@EdJr:

Yeah, the idea of trying to migrate good old PJ somewhere else sounds scary.

We can not update it. We can not throw it away either. PJ is an old relic.

Originally posted by EdJr @ 5/8/2017

@pyro: I'm definitely interested! As I said, my only concern is the responsibility that may come with it. But we can talk more about that :)

@Theoden (and everyone else interested): I've already tried to ask sedge to allow us to help him with the programming, but I was kind of ignored (just a vague reply and not much else). Is anyone here closer (in terms of intimacy) to him? Has anyone tried to nag talk about this general discontent from the members? I still want to believe that there's a way to get him to do what needs to be done, but I don't want to bother him anymore.

Originally posted by Jinn @ 5/8/2017

Just saying again that I'd join a money pool to cover the costs of revamping PJ.

Originally posted by EdJr @ 5/8/2017

I would too (and I think this has higher chances of working), but again it would come down to talking to sedge and convincing him.... I can PM him again, but it'll probably work best if more people express interest!

Originally posted by MrHai @ 5/8/2017

I would also contribute to a fund

Originally posted by cure @ 5/8/2017

I'd contribute* to a rebel organization set on building a new pixel site that's capable of being updated every 5 years or so. But only if the hypothetical New Jerusalem took a broader view on pixel art. If it weren't for migrations we'd all still live in the ocean.

*time and art, you'll get no gold from me

Originally posted by EdJr @ 5/8/2017

Interesting.... How broad? (Extra points if you have written a treatise/tweet on the subject.) I'm​ probably just uninformed, but I have a hard time imagining what sorts of things could be allowed without opening the doors to art that ultimately skews the focus on "PJ-ish" pixel art too much (assuming we see said focus as something valuable for the community).

Originally posted by cure @ 5/8/2017

Well, I started to write a treatise (because I'm that kinda guy), but it morphed into a history of pixel art (link to the pixelation thread in my profile). As I began to elucidate what I thought pixel art should include and why, it became apparent to me that understanding the history of both the medium and the technique (the latter predating the former) was key to understanding the motivations and manifestations of pixel art.

-

Basically I'm cool with all the Superbrothers sh*t: lens flares, gradients, etc.The medium is evolving, artists are experimenting with new techniques, and we should embrace that so long as pixel placement is still a major element of the work.

I'm ok with pixel art that's a bit "looser" than you generally find on this site (and have argued for the inclusion of this more "impressionistic" style in the past). I think labeling anything remotely loose as "oekaki" or "NPA" limits the artist from using a more expressive approach and working in styles that are perfectly fine in other media. (also see: Uno Moralez)

All the demoscene stuff that causes a ruckus here at PJ? Bring it on over. No rules just tools.

I'd hope to avoid the slippery slope argument by A) not giving a sh*t about prizes and backpats, so the competitive digitrophy aspect is removed and "why is X allowed?" becomes less of an issue, and B) relying less on inflexible rules and relying more on moderator/user judgement. Does it feel like pixel art? Was the careful placement of individual pixels vital to the creation of the work? Hopefully you can avoid the situation we've seen here in the past, where a large portion of the user base is upset that this or that piece didn't get in because it technically broke rule #48 even though everyone loved it or it was made by a pixel art legend 20 years ago.

Originally posted by king_bobston @ 5/9/2017

I do think that PJ's main attractions for new users are the challenges and hope for useful feedback.

I think the helpful community we have came to be into existance because of PJ's reputation of being very strict. I do agree that it's sometimes too strict (or rather strict in the wrong places) but I think giving that up would blur the community with ones that find everything great and never dare to critique.

And personally I like competitions, especially the kind we have here.

Other than that I would welcome a functional site, which is almost my only problem with PJ

Originally posted by Veli @ 5/9/2017

Thanks to whoever pulled those old pieces out of PQ.

And also wanted to say tha I would also contribute to a fund also contribute to a fund

Originally posted by cure @ 5/9/2017

I think you're confusing digitrophy ego-boosts with challenges/collaborations, the latter I obviously don't have a problem with.

I think this community would still have coalesced without such strict definitions of pixel art, and our reputation for being strict has only disuaded pixel artists from joining, or pushed them away after their work is rejected. I seem to remember this happening to Uno Moralez, but I could be misremembering, I definitely recall it driving away several demosceners and OG pixel artists who have played significant roles in the history of pixel art, all because they didn't use the artificial definition of pixel art that we created for this site. I fail to see how being more open to "non-kosher" pixel art creates an environment where people think "everything is great and never dare to critique."

Originally posted by ParkerBabyDiaperCompany @ 5/9/2017

Without trophies what's the point of doing pixel art?

Originally posted by king_bobston @ 5/9/2017

'I think you're confusing digitrophy ego-boosts with challenges/collaborations, the latter I obviously don't have a problem with.'

I mean competitions exactly the way we have them and the monthly top.

Overall I see the little badges as little encouragements and sometimes nods and jokes from mods, if someone inflates them to be more than that, it would be the problem of the individual imo. Even when someone gets an ego-boost from having digitrophies I don't see any problem with that either.

'I think this community would still have coalesced without such strict definitions of pixel art, and our reputation for being strict has only disuaded pixel artists from joining, or pushed them away after their work is rejected.'

It depends on how big the change would be ofc, I do believe PJ could be more lax in some ways but not too much.

I don't know about the majority but I came here to learn specifically to pixel the "purist" way. I don't mean with that, that I'll always only do "purist" PJ-approved pixel art and shun the other kinds - but it's something I wanted to be able to do and would say enhances what you can do with less "purist" ways (I don't really like the word but it's works good in this case).

I do like a lot of demoscene pixel art and some of the effects used in combination do look great to me, too, but that's not what I came here for (and afaik there's already great demoscene communities and galleries for them). Personally I wouldn't consider leaving just because PJ allows other sorts of pixel art but I'm not sure if I would have joined in the first place and I know a bunch of really nice and helpful members that seem to be way more stung up than me in those regards.

I think no one should be held up by PJ's standard but I do believe there's enough other places so I don't see the problem with a community excluding certain types of works in favor of others. Especially since PJ isn't really that great in regards to visibility..

Iirc people who left after their work got rejected mostly have problems because they say it fits PJ's criteria while PJ (whoever decided) disagrees. As far as people staying away goes, that sad but I think it works the other way, too.

'I fail to see how being more open to "non-kosher" pixel art creates an environment where people think "everything is great and never dare to critique."'

That was an overstatement from me based on that I see PJ's biggest seperation from other places (that PJ refuses certain artworks) and how little other communities help with improving in my experience.

The only problem I see with PJ being a grumpy old stung up is that some people claim PJ's standard is the definition of what pixel art is (which probably makes the impression PJ is even more purist than it actually is).

Originally posted by cure @ 5/9/2017

if someone inflates them to be more than that, it would be the problem of the individual imo

My point is that it is much more than that. When you add this "Top 10" aspect, you get stricter about what qualifies as pixel art and what is allowed in the gallery, otherwise it is unfair to other members if pieces made by "cheating" steal the trophies.

there's already great demoscene communities and galleries for [demoscene artists]

Cross-polination never hurt. Why limit the talent that can be shared here?

I don't see the problem with a community excluding certain types of works in favor of others

Less cool art to look at, less cool artists to interact with.

Iirc people who left after their work got rejected mostly have problems because they say it fits PJ's criteria while PJ (whoever decided) disagrees.

I'm talking about artists whose work is considered pixel art by themselves and the world at large, and often many members here, but fails to meet PJ's litmus test. Often work that has been approved then sent back, PJ has always been wishy-washy due precisely to the fact that these lines delineating pixel art from "NPA" are artificial. These cases are often a matter of artists disagreeing with the strict rules PJ applies retroactively to artwork and artists so pivotal in the scene that they may have inspired members here to start pixelling.

@PBDC: Likes, favorites, and internet fame. More substantial food for the ego.

Originally posted by king_bobston @ 5/9/2017

"My point is that it is much more than that. When you add this "Top 10" aspect, you get stricter about what qualifies as pixel art and what is allowed in the gallery, otherwise it is unfair to other members if pieces made by "cheating" steal the trophies."

That's true but I don't have a problem with the site being strict (since I don't feel personally limited by that) in the first place and prefer strict with monthly over lax without monthly.

"Less cool art to look at, less cool artists to interact with."

If PJ would be the only place to look at art and interact with other pixel artist I would agree, but it isn't. PJ is very specialised which has both it's up and downs, I'm here for the ups and for the downs I go elsewhere. I doubt it's possible to eliminate the down sides without sacrificing some up sides.

As I see it, our current community formed around our current guidelines. I don't doubt many of us (myself included) don't like everything in those, but changing something fundamental will have an affect on the community. I'm sure we would get new, cool artists but I'm also sure we would lose some. Of course it depends how crucial the change would be.

I would be in favor of a more clear interpretation but what you proposed was even more personal judgement (but more lax).

"@PBDC: Likes, favorites, and internet fame. More substantial food for the ego."

Showing dank trophies to strangers is more impressive than those nerdy numbers

Originally posted by cure @ 5/9/2017

Well, I guess we just have different visions for this site. For you, it is a matter of a more open vs a more strict monthly top. For me, it is a question of whether the monthly top trophy system is worthwhile in itself, given that it creates stricter rules. You seem to want clearer rules, whereas I'm saying f**k the rules*. This isn't something I think an equation can do better than human judgement, rules are useful only as guidelines, following the letter rather the spirit of the law is for Pharisees.

*mostly #6 and its multiplicitous interpretations

Originally posted by Hapiel @ 5/9/2017

I wish this discussion was held in the forums, so that it would remain findable in the future. Also, I'm with Cure.

Originally posted by king_bobston @ 5/10/2017

No, I say that the only reason PJ stayed relevant up to now is it's community and stuck-up views. I'm assuming first is strongly influenced by second and by changing second we would lose what separates us from the other sites.

I mostly agree with your points from an individuell standpoint but not from viewpoint of a community.

I go to other places to view and interact with more open pixel art (and don't like that some gets viewed as npa just because it doesn't fit PJ's standard)

But I can't go anywhere else to find and interact with more stuck up artists

(PS.: kinda funny but I've argued what you just said about "idea behind the rules > following rules to the letter" from your standpoint in another discussion maybe a week ago)

Originally posted by Theoden @ 5/9/2017

I have to agree with king bobston here.

When I first started getting into pixel art years ago, I was basically doing digital painting at a very low res. I was posting them to my deviantart gallery, labelled as pixel art. One day I remember getting confused with a comment from a pixel art group I submitted my work to, stating that this was not actually pixel art due to the filters, gradients and hundreds of colors used in it.

Obviously I was not even aware of what traditional pixel art was. I even remember getting annoyed for some reason. After all, how dare they tell me what my work is or is not right? I continued to do more "mixed media pixel art" thinking I was still doing pixel art but it was just in a different style which most people didn't like.

Then I eventually discovered Pixel Joint and Pixelation around 2010.

I browsed the forums and went through the tutorials, techniques and specs of pixel art and I realized what that deviantart pixel art group moderator meant when he said my work wasn't pixel art at all. I finally understood that I had no idea what I was doing.

For me PixelJoint was and is the single most significant platform for learning and sharing pixel art in its traditional and "pure" form. And by pure I mean the technique. I consider other "pixel art like" works as digital mixed media.

I can understand cure's frustration about the rules getting in the way of more varied styles and techniques but if PJ drops its fundamental submission rules what would stop PixelJoint from turning into a mixed art gallery like Deviantart?

People with a similar mindset of my younger self would overflow the gallery with all kinds of "in between art" and claim that their work is actually pixel art.

On the other hand we should be able to talk and decide to drop, soften or revise the rules if needed. That's totally OK in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I love all kinds of digital art.

I am also a fan of Uno Moralez's works. I wish we had him posting actively here.

But if I really want to follow him I can still do it on other platforms without any restrictions.

If people don't want to post works with traditional techniques which pixel art enthusiasts like us find to be the definitive factor of what pixel art is, then it is perfectly fine if they decide to go and post elsewhere as well.

We shouldn't have to change PixelJoint to get more art which might not be as pixel art as it used to be. This is a pixel art community after all and without that definition what is it?

I think PixelJoint (along with Pixelation) is the last fortress of traditional pixel art and it would make me really sad to see it change its ways drastically.

Originally posted by greenraven @ 5/10/2017

I see that we're rehashing all those same conversations again.

One thing I need to butt in on as always: Pixel Joint is not "traditional" pixel art. For me traditional is defined by all those artists that pixeled during the golden age of gaming back in the 90's. And as they point out they never had any of these silly rules. PJ just made stuff up, said "that's how it is", and the masses just went with it out of simply not knowing any better.

tl;dr - PJ is a usurping fraud.

Originally posted by cure @ 5/10/2017

if PJ drops its fundamental submission rules what would stop PixelJoint from turning into a mixed art gallery like Deviantart?
Moderation, both in regards to quality and content. The same thing that keeps the barbarians at bay in the present day. Most of the submission rules are fine.

I wish we had [Uno Moralez] posting actively here
But we don't, we shooed him away with cries of "OEKAKI!"


If people don't want to post works with traditional techniques which pixel art enthusiasts like us find to be the definitive factor of what pixel art is
Not what I had in mind. Pixel-pushing must remain a vital aspect of the work.


This is a pixel art community after all and without that definition what is it?
Whose definition?


And greenraven is 100% right about "traditional pixel art". Whose traditions are we talking about? Hopefully more than just our own, circa 2005 to present. We have driven away traditional pixel artists (i.e. OGs from the 80s/90s) because their work doesn't fit with our artificial, retroactive definitions of "pixel art." I understand why we felt it necessary to define pixel art, the edges blur into related digital artforms. But those blurry edges are a reality we can't ignore, purity is an ideal we can't uphold, and I believe more work in that massive gray area created by our parameters warrants inclusion, at no real cost to this community. I understand why a slippery slope argument seems like a natural response to this position, but that is precisely why I think educated (maybe re-educated) human moderators are a vital part of the submission process.

Originally posted by king_bobston @ 5/10/2017

What makes you sure that there wouldn't be consequences to the community? Sure, like I already said I'm only assuming that it doesn't sit well with all of the community if we include other types of pixel art as the ones we currently do, I base that on my personal experience and talks with others and that if there weren't people having problems with it, we would already have it.

Originally posted by cure @ 5/10/2017

Just don't see why it would, its as much an assumption as assuming there would be an exodus. Maybe you're envisioning less pixelly work than I am, or maybe it's a matter of conservative vs. liberal attitudes toward pixel art.

I think you have a little too much faith in the democracy of PJ. Moderators have a lot of influence over what the gallery consists of, we wrote the rules and separated the wheat from the chaff. Jal, as much as I love him, was particularly conservative and occasionally stubborn on the issue of pixel purity as it relates to the gallery.

Originally posted by Zizka @ 5/10/2017

I'm with King Boston, Theoden and PBDC for a strict approach to pixel art. Part of the pixel art is dealing with the limitations and taming them in some way as opposed to simply give up on them. It's part of the philosophy and the challenge of pixel art (to me).

Thank god for pixelation and PJ. I personally wouldn't visit either if they became more lax.

Jal, as much as I love him, was particularly conservative and occasionally stubborn on the issue of pixel purity as it relates to the gallery.

I see things differently. What you call 'stubborn', I call determined (in a positive, not pejorative way). I totally agreed on his purist stance on pixel art.

Some people will have a more flexible approach like you cure while others are more hard line purists (like jal, me and others) and a whole lot of people in-between.

It's a tough call to make. The issue with your reading of things is that you forget the other side of the coin. You mention how "we" drove some artists away... keep in mind that it also attracted other artists because of that rigidity. There's no such thing as a perfect position here where everything would end up 100% satisfied. So it's sort of a moot point to say there would be more artists to interact with if we were more lax. The opposite could likely happen.

Originally posted by cure @ 5/10/2017

Thank god for pixelation and PJ. I personally wouldn't visit either if they became more lax.

Pixelation won't remove hybrid work, it has a board for low poly, etc. There is still a focus there on the philosophy of arranging opaque pixels on a grid, but no one is arguing this skill should no longer be the focus. Just that finished artworks could ignore some of the artificial limitations and, say, use a gradient for the sky in the background because it's smoother than some 4 color dithered mess. It's great to know how to work within limitations, and it's equally important to know when to break limitations to achieve a desired effect. There are inherent limitations that breed creativity, and there are imposed limitations that, adhered to religiously, will inhibit creativity.

I totally agreed on [ jalonso's ] purist stance on pixel art.

There's a lot of back room discussion that went into approving work for the gallery. I don't mean to discount your opinion, maybe you did agree with him 100%, but the nuances of moderators' stances on work that did/didn't make it into the gallery is really only known to the other moderators. Anyway, the point was not to criticize his judgement, though we didn't always agree, but rather to point out this is not a democracy.

There's no such thing as a perfect position here where everything would end up 100% satisfied

Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it couldn't be better. At any rate, this is less a discussion of reforms that need to happen at PJ and more of a discussion of the form an ideal pixel art site. The site we'll need when the queue here gets to 20 pages.

Originally posted by greenraven @ 5/10/2017

As far as I'm concerned oekaki is pixel art.

My biggest problem with PJ isn't the fact that it has rules so much as it has a zealous cult preaching it as some sort of gospel.

For me personally "pixel art" means late 80's to mid-90's before 3D became the dominant video game form.

Originally posted by Adarias @ 5/10/2017

It takes a certain determination to carve out a niche. PJ has done that.

However, I have never seen a case in which a strict purist approach benefitted the art or the artists. Innovation CAN arise from working with a limited set of tools, but arbitrarily restricting techniques seems counterproductive. It also seems that in a relaxed setting, pieces demonstrating significant artfulness would rise to the top. Sloppy work, regardless of tools, is easy to spot. Finally, the "purism" of PJ has always felt fairly arbitrary. I don't see how using index painting is less pixel-art than using a fill bucket. I don't see how using dither brushes is less pixel-art than using a lasso tool. I don't see how simple transparency is less pixel-art than palette swapping. And the concept of unlimited canvas sizes just feels arbitrary. Yet hard lines have been drawn which make these distinctions.

Originally posted by king_bobston @ 5/11/2017

I don't know where you get the democracy thing from, all I meant is that there's different opinions and I think each has good points for what they think.

I think arbitrary rules is a great way to learn new skills (not just pixel art) as in breaking down complex themes into managable parts. If you mean completly useless rules with that, I think that's extremely subjective.

I think it's benificial for both PJ and Pixelation to have some different stances and think it's easier for a forum to be more lax in the way they are.

I did argue so far from a 'changes for PJ' standpoint despite knowing it's moot.. I'm keeping out of discussing a replacement/successor/whatever, at least for now.

Originally posted by Paddy @ 5/11/2017

fairly ironic having an argument (discussion?) about something that's generally conceived as care-free and nonrestrictive. It's art, shouldn't be putting strict rules or restrictions on it :)

Originally posted by DawnBringer @ 5/11/2017

No-one is restricting you, you can can do whatever art you want. You just can't do anything anywhere or everywhere. It's called categories, style, genre etc. You can write your porn novel, you just can't display it in the kid's section, or more importantly...why would you want to?

Originally posted by Hapiel @ 5/11/2017

I like the pixelation approach. Rules are fine, select a checkbox on your submission to state that this was "tool-free" pixel art. But there is a large pixel art community out there who seem to have no connection and no interest in PJ, and I think the freedom would get them interested. Quality control should remain. But I want to connect with the future of pixel art, not with it's past or PJ leftover.

Originally posted by Paddy @ 5/11/2017

That's a bit of a drastic comparison though, be more like putting The Very Hungry Caterpillar into the Food & Cooking category, as you can make an argument that it features food and should belong there. As opposed to an erotic novel in a childs section.

I don't see why we can't just cater to multiple "categories, genres" etc. It's all art containing pixels and developed at a pixel level. Can have both a purist section and a section for the "less pure".

Originally posted by Zizka @ 5/11/2017

fairly ironic having an argument (discussion?) about something that's generally conceived as care-free and nonrestrictive.

Ironic in what sense? People are discussing what should/shouldn't be hosted in a pixel art gallery. Art can be care-free all you want, there are just certain places for certain things. I'd be bummed to find an oil painting on a pixel art forum. Sometimes you just want carefree art made with a certain medium.

At the end of the day, the decision will be up to whoever holds dominion over the website. Considering how difficult it is to get sedgemonkey's involvement regarding the website and the recurrent stagnation that goes along with it, a new alternative would certainly be enticing. I'm not hating on sedgemonkey here, he can do whatever he wants with the website, it's his.

Originally posted by Paddy @ 5/11/2017

I'm more so referencing the pixel art that contains practices that are generally frowned upon here (gradients etc. the "pixelish" art basically). Not mediums that aren't related to pixel art whatsoever like your oil painting comparison.

Originally posted by Adarias @ 5/11/2017

As I remember a lot of the rules were decided at a time when DeviantArt and Pixen were booming with sloppy Oekaki and color-reduced pr0n dolls. then we had a rash of demosceners flocking to the site and it was asked whether anyone could 'intentionally' place 256 shades of gray and the general answer was "nawp."

Once precedent is set it's hard to go backsies. The fact that I disagree with certain informal rules is largely irrelevant. I'd rather see the carriage return issue fixed than any changes to the moderation policies.

Originally posted by EdJr @ 6/8/2017

Damn, don't I sound like a spoiled brat. I'm just frustrated about the current state of things, as I'm sure others are, but I probably shouldn't be talking the way I've been. My suggestion was more to call sedge's attention than anything. I'm very thankful for all his contributions, I don't think he owes us anything and I know it's not exactly easy to change things. All I'd like to see, as I've been saying in my posts, is at least some way to allow outside contributions - which might take some initial effort, sure, but would pretty much take care of itself from then on if done right (think GitHub). Even the initial effort may not be that significant; after all, PJ's source code and infrastructure aren't (or shouldn't be) complicated at all. Also, it's not like we're in a hurry to make things work; slow, incremental improvements would already be pretty awesome (plus, most current bugs are probably pretty easy to fix). The very fact that many of us (sedge included) have busy lives is just one more reason to encourage collaboration.

Honestly, if that ever had to happen, I'd be glad to buy PJ, if only to make sure it wouldn't go to sh*t, but just knowing that it's going to be around in the foreseeable future and still keep its "critical mass" of users would be good enough.

Originally posted by Hapiel @ 6/8/2017

Buying PJ.. that has been on my dream list for some years :p.

I'm not sure if a Git would be as easy as it sounds. It comes with a couple of security and trust issues, and a looot of communication also on Sedge's side.

Right now my money is on a new PJ, I'm curious to see how Pyros plans will develop over the years.

So many of our questions could be answered if Sedge would join in the conversation, tell his side of the story in public and share his thoughts on the future of PJ... I'll write him a message, unless someone who is in better contact with him volunteers?

Originally posted by EdJr @ 6/8/2017

Unless you're suggesting PJ has been operating on security through obscurity all these years, I don't see how Git would be a problem beyond the short term. Actually, any security issue would be a really strong sign that we should do it. And there are private repos, you know. We could let, initially, only a few people have access to the code to fix the serious issues, then open it up to the whole community. Or not. As I said, all that matters to me for now is that PJ gets its fixes and a few new features in less than 10 years.

Trust is another matter, but wouldn't you agree that it would be way easier to find at least one trustworthy person to manage this stuff than to throw the baby out with the bathwater by investing in a "new PJ" altogether? That would certainly take a lot of time and effort, and unnecessarily so. Even if the plan is to completely rewrite the code, there's no need to move from here unless you really believe in a Promised Land. I also don't see how the trust issue would be solved by keeping the source closed or changing owners. For all I know, the new maintainers would be happy to sell my organs to the NSA.

In short, there are many ways to do this and I'm sure sedge doesn't need to be that closely involved at all if he can't or doesn't want to. We just have to think a little about it and everything gets figured out. Of course, the most important part of this is still him, so we should definitely be trying to communicate already. I don't think there's any harm in you sending him a message, so go ahead, I guess :D
(But yeah, if anyone here is closer to him and want to chime in, please do!)

Originally posted by Hapiel @ 6/8/2017

You're right, there is a lot of stuff that can be done which is easier and better than investing in a new PJ.

As for git security, I'm not an expert on this so correct me if I'm wrong but the way I see it:

Exposing your server side code makes it easy to find flaws and holes. With the value of PJ's database I'd worry that someone might try to use those. A closed git is an option, but then you're putting a lot of responsibility and trust on the skills of the people who are in on it. Without the whole world being able to check if their work works, the owner will have to do it.

Anyway, I'll send a message and let you know if there is a response

Originally posted by EdJr @ 6/8/2017

Well, pretty much all the relevant parts of the DB (except for passwords and PMs) are already exposed to literally anyone without any hard limitations (except for e.g. the limitation on the number of pages on the chatterbox, which shouldn't be happening). Many websites nowadays have protections against this kind of abuse; PJ doesn't. As I said, it's super easy to just download the entire site and extract all images and stuff and you don't even have to be logged in to do that. Also, PJ still uses HTTP instead of HTTPS, so it's not like we can exactly "trust" the current system, either. (Use unique passwords, kids.)

Being able to find flaws easily is a good thing. That is, as long as there's someone to quickly fix them, so I get that there are risks. But seriously, something like PJ isn't rocket surgery. Protect passwords and PMs, make regular backups, don't accidentally include private keys in the versioning system, done. Aside from major screw-ups, which are always a possibility, there isn't much else to be afraid of being "lost" or "stolen" (and, again, the current system already makes that pretty easy to do). Considering the owner himself probably isn't a super professional security expert haxxor programmer or anything like that, I don't see how having him go through every single change would make the thing work any better than just assuming the devs know what they're doing, especially if they're more involved and knowledgeable in their work (again, obviously, assuming that they're trustworthy and actually know what they're doing). If you can trust no one, there really is no way to change anything.

Thanks a lot, I hope everything goes well! xD