you know I'd almost believe that lol

Fr, what browser do you use? I'm an Edge (Chromium) user myself, so maybe I'm thinking there's something about the video that causes it to behave differently on different browsers.

Just did a test on Chrome and the video didn't play at all for me. Weird!

Try Firefox or Chrome. Always good to have a second browser and not stick to just only one. I use Firefox mainly, and occasionally Chrome.

I've personally got Supermium, LibreWolf, and Brave installed on my machine.

I used to be on Firefox, but jumped ship to LibreWolf after Mozilla decided to start stealing people's data.

I'd personally recommend Supermium and LibreWolf myself - they're both pretty good. (Also Supermium runs on Windows XP, which is what caught my interest in the first place)

So from the data we have so far, it seems that the video is working on Firefox-based browsers but nor Chromium ones... I may have to get Firefox installed myself in order to check this one out.

And I just did a test with Firefox, it's not working for me there either. I've seen this issue occasionally pop up, I think it's an issue with the file that the submitter uploaded. It works fine if you download and play the mp4 file in VLC. Sometimes web players just don't play well with a certain file.

Here's a link to the video file if you really want it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/145egCloyaBArETSc8ZyrpA8iEFa0joyR/view?usp=sharing

Looks like the submission passed judgment... honest question: what the fuck is going on with the portal lately? I'm seeing more and more of these barebones submissions pass judgment with what used to be considered a "good" score.

We could ask Tom to raise to raise the voting rights of certain individuals, maybe tack on a bonus to whistle status, give the people that are likely voting lower more power to wash out more items, maybe create a page on newgrounds dedicated to "the voting standards"

I am sure that there are other solutions to the problem of items being overvoted on and then diminishing the gold standard

I'd be curious to what other people would have to say and if tom agrees that this is a problem that is adversely affecting the site

Since the all your base video (posted in 2001) was let in, i wonder if ytps like this are still allowed too

Generally, no, YTP-style videos are no longer allowed. If one comes in every so often that is particularly well done, we'll probably give it a pass. But I can't think of anything that has actually qualified for it. Newgrounds just isn't the place for Youtube-style edits of someone else's work. We want original creations here.

And thinking about it a bit more, the original AYB video really isn't in the same category as a YTP. It was a collaboration between a lot of people centered on a funny mistranslation, containing a lot of original creations.

Generally, I'd say no - as modified versions of other people's work, they'd be prohibited under Movie Guidelines.

This is a bad idea mainly because unless these are given out in secret and not so much publicly, people with a much stronger voting right can be targeted for people either desperately need 5 stars on their submissions or need to zero bomb submissions. It's mainly bad because I feel like this is the hardest to answer properly first and foremost, how do we make this work exactly? How do we minimize the possible bad actors and ensure that the gold standard is at least consistent? What makes one person eligible and the other not eligible?

I mean, at least there's an incentive to get better whistles, but I feel like this is a conflict of interest because the whistle IS for reporting submissions that do violate the portal submissions. Plus it's like I tried to use the confusion between a blam and a whistle as a feature for having a good whistle for voting, which are two different concepts. The worst part about it is exactly how is this counteracted with people who ONLY follow the rules for the mere power of the deity whistle? My solution to that would be that if you posted submissions that break the portal guidelines or have done anything that would be deemed unfair (Like actually zero-bombing submissions.) revokes whistle points and/or could possibly demote your whistle status or remove the bonus for you. It's really hard to distinguish voters that gave 0 for its' merits versus zero bombers mainly because while reviews can be used to differentiate each other, the block feature is sadly, for better or for worse, abused in this category as some users may opt into this feature to effectively ban reviewers who give negative reviews for a submission, making it particularly unreliable if you're not exactly sure if the uploader can handle criticism and not every mod can know that beyond of a doubt. This isn't necessarily bad for me because I don't really see the problem since everybody who I've blocked reviews from would be completely terrible at making reviews (Because their reviews is NOT the reason why I did it unless someone REALLY shits it up to a T, but who would do that?) OR would abuse this by sending really fucked up shit that violates any sort of guidelines, but it's still a problem to acknowledge even if I don't get affected by this and not everybody uses the block feature like I do, so we're gonna need a sensible system to fight zero bombing with little to no room of error.

Okay, when I read this the second time to ensure what I've said makes sense, I wrote EVERYTHING as if it were under the interpretation of a BBS topic. It COULD be different because an written reply as I'm going to mention is formatted much differently from a reply in a form of a video, because you're not restricted to a 2 images limitation (For non-supporters that is.), but nevertheless, here we go: I should state this would require WAY MORE rules for it to work, because assuming that users who vote are also users who visit the BBS are the majority of voters, you would need regulation to prevent people from just telling people that "X sucks because of Y" and "X rocks because I give Uploader Y blowjobs", for people who don't get it, we need to prevent zerobombers and dickriders for coming into it and corrupting the golden standard. If it's anything from what I'm thinking, people post a submission link, either a Movie or Game submission, say whether this submission should stay or get trashed, then write it as if it's an argumentative essay with the thesis OF why it should stay or get removed. But I wanna get more interpretations of this.

Image slideshow. No animation

We do have a Voting Power stat but ever since this site was updated to only allow one vote per submission, I'm not even sure if this is relevant anymore or does anything.

To my knowledge, it still does - I've seen my vote have a fair impact on some subs' total score.

I won't blame you for thinking otherwise - the "one vote per sub" update really cut down your ability to influence if something got blammed or saved.

That's arguably for the better - means total scores much more accurately reflect userbase sentiment.

It does though?

You vote a single time and put xxx number of votes into the given submission?

Thanks, no big deal I'll just post them only on youtube

Live action videos

Animu

https://youtu.be/yhTFMswNNtE?si=IcaqD98wYDFelpN_&t=87

https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/943266 (explicit)

Nsfw rated M, should to be rated A

Congrats on being User of the Day @GlitchBuddy!

Thank you Tango, I really appreciate it! I'm gonna try my best to be more active today as a result.

Submitter is claiming Frank Voulie let him use one of his tracks as BGM for this (not sure which) - recommending someone go check if that's the case.

Both clips come from a chilean television channel

no animation - static image

speedpaint

Recording of neal.fun's Design the Next iPhone. https://neal.fun/design-the-next-iphone/

https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/943368 (explicit)

Explicit nudity rated M, should to be rated A

How well does this fit under "advertisement" or "preview"?

about 0%

that animation was bumping

No animation, it's just a speedrun: