Site Changes Discussion

[vla1ne]

But that is what I am trying to bring up as "entitlement". We are arguing the semantics of our own desire of YCMaker and what we draw from him. There is nothing wrong or right about what wanting things from YCMaker, but expecting them is wrong. We do not have the information that he has available. I am not saying that there are not ways to obtain it. My ideas are abstract, as are the premises are obtaining them.

 

The use of this is subjective relativity to our own demeanor and desire, while granting possiblies to present them in another focus if someone took upon the chance. Consider yourself a patron, sure, but the level of which we support YCMaker is miniscule, and we're just seen as 0.01% of support. Wanting is fine, go for it. Wanting, in a rational form, is nothing but hope and recognition under the premise of which we can manage. Expecting what we are doing, in an objective manner, being right is not in anything but wrong.

 

It would be better if YCMaker talked more or not talked at all. But, oh well, he talks and then does nothing. I have been there, and so has everyone here, making promises and not keeping them. To the person that we made the promise to, it is a lot bigger than it is to the one who promised and forgot. Habitually, it is consistent to us, since we are the ones who only see YCMaker the moments he makes those promises.

that's the exact reason i want to talk to him. without hearing his side, there is no rhyme or reason to his actions, and all i'm asking for is to understand the reasons. there is nothing entitled about wanting to understand actions that appear irrational.

 

you are correct, we use it by our own will, and we aren't major patrons, (guests outnumber us 3-1 and are simply the larger share of the profit) but wanting communication's not entitlement, it's the consumer wishing to know more about the product and licencing restrictions. YCM might be his, but us, the consumer, wish to know clearly what we can and cannot do with the product, so that we don't keep hitting invisible walls like this.

 

owning the site makes it no less of a dick move to make and not keep promises though. sure, it's his right, but it remains a dick move, and nowhere would you expect people to make promises and then blatantly ignore them, stopping anybody else who may wish to deliver on those promises in their stead except in politics, but that's another discussion for another time.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

The card game Yu-Gi-Oh! is dying.

 

Have you looked at pack sales recently?

 

It's not even close to dying. Hell the rate of sales increased OCG side post Links

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Some of this is starting to go off topic guys, pull it back a bit

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

BTW that's the second derivative

 

Sales = Function

 

Change in Sales = First derivative (has always been + with the exception of the one set after Tachyon Galaxy)

 

How much change in sales varies from one set to another - second derivative. This was relatively even, but went up during the set with Plushfire, Zoos, and now Links 

Some of this is starting to go off topic guys, pull it back a bit

Yeh sorry, you split my post, but I'll drop it from here

[Simping For Hina]

that's the exact reason i want to talk to him. without hearing his side, there is no rhyme or reason to his actions, and all i'm asking for is to understand the reasons. there is nothing entitled about wanting to understand actions that appear irrational.

 

you are correct, we use it by our own will, and we aren't major patrons, (guests outnumber us 3-1 and are simply the larger share of the profit) but wanting communication's not entitlement, it's the consumer wishing to know more about the product and licencing restrictions. YCM might be his, but us, the consumer, wish to know clearly what we can and cannot do with the product, so that we don't keep hitting invisible walls like this.

 

owning the site makes it no less of a dick move to make and not keep promises though. sure, it's his right, but it remains a dick move, and nowhere would you expect people to make promises and then blatantly ignore them, stopping anybody else who may wish to deliver on those promises in their stead except in politics, but that's another discussion for another time.

Humans are irrational, that doesn't make them a dick or what they do a dick move. Calling for such, and bringing attention to the point that they are more than just human, is entitlement for justification of actions. Putting anything in that light is an expectation, and us expecting things from YCMaker is entitlement. Saying "I want YCMaker to do X" is wanting (or wishing). Thinking that YCMaker has any purpose to actually answer and justify his actions is expectation, and in this instance is entitlement.

 

We are not consumers. We are people who use this site. Consumers pay for a service, we are given this service. Time is not money in this scenario.

 

It is no more or less of a dick move than making plans to meet up with a friend and then forgetting to cancel on him because you have a hot date. Sure, it sucks, but it happens. You are putting more emphasis on the point of expectation rather than the point of wish, or desire.

 

I can break down your point by the words you use, but calling someone out in a negative connotation is, by itself, the means of expecting someone to do something and that goes further than "wishing" on YCMaker to appeal. You are flat out putting YCMaker in a light that would only appeal to you (members of this site as a whole), while saying that the move to do so is negative.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Humans are irrational, that doesn't make them a dick or what they do a dick move. Calling for such, and bringing attention to the point that they are more than just human, is entitlement for justification of actions. Putting anything in that light is an expectation, and us expecting things from YCMaker is entitlement. Saying "I want YCMaker to do X" is wanting (or wishing). Thinking that YCMaker has any purpose to actually answer and justify his actions is expectation, and in this instance is entitlement.

 

We are not consumers. We are people who use this site. Consumers pay for a service, we are given this service. Time is not money in this scenario.

 

It is no more or less of a dick move than making plans to meet up with a friend and then forgetting to cancel on him because you have a hot date. Sure, it sucks, but it happens. You are putting more emphasis on the point of expectation rather than the point of wish, or desire.

 

I can break down your point by the words you use, but calling someone out in a negative connotation is, by itself, the means of expecting someone to do something and that goes further than "wishing" on YCMaker to appeal. You are flat out putting YCMaker in a light that would only appeal to you (members of this site as a whole), while saying that the move to do so is negative.

You should look up public goods and positive externalities 

 

Consumers pay for goods is a oversimplification 

[Phantom Roxas]

Some of this is starting to go off topic guys, pull it back a bit

 

For the sake of argument, would you care to be a bit more specific? Otherwise I feel like the thread is going to continue derailing unless we know what exactly is getting off topic.

[Simping For Hina]

You should look up public goods and positive externalities 

 

Consumers pay for goods is a oversimplification 

I mean, sure, put that forth, but YCM is under no umbrella of which those reside. In highlights of economy, YCM is not considered to be any of these.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

For the sake of argument, would you care to be a bit more specific? Otherwise I feel like the thread is going to continue derailing unless we know what exactly is getting off topic.

The talk of YGO itself. Dunno where the current discussion falls tbh

[vla1ne]

Humans are irrational, that doesn't make them a dick or what they do a dick move. Calling for such, and bringing attention to the point that they are more than just human, is entitlement for justification of actions. Putting anything in that light is an expectation, and us expecting things from YCMaker is entitlement. Saying "I want YCMaker to do X" is wanting (or wishing). Thinking that YCMaker has any purpose to actually answer and justify his actions is expectation, and in this instance is entitlement.

 

We are not consumers. We are people who use this site. Consumers pay for a service, we are given this service. Time is not money in this scenario.

 

It is no more or less of a dick move than making plans to meet up with a friend and then forgetting to cancel on him because you have a hot date. Sure, it sucks, but it happens. You are putting more emphasis on the point of expectation rather than the point of wish, or desire.

 

I can break down your point by the words you use, but calling someone out in a negative connotation is, by itself, the means of expecting someone to do something and that goes further than "wishing" on YCMaker to appeal. You are flat out putting YCMaker in a light that would only appeal to you (members of this site as a whole), while saying that the move to do so is negative.

no, it's still not entitlement. you are also making far too general an argument for my statement here. humans being irrational is not a defence, if i slap food out of a baby's hand, that's irrational, but i doubt you would say humans are irrational is a solid defense in that case. and the same applies here, the case is too specific, and the evidence for one sides actions being both positive and rational, beat out the actions of the other side, which as of yet, are irrational, if not negative. my desire for an explanation is by no means entitlement, even under your umbrella. i have an understanding of the actions tormented took, and as such, can see them as good for the site. making the site nicer to look at, and easier to navigate, are both positive attributes. YCMaker, has shut this action down, which is an irrational action, as preventing people from granting your site positive attributes, with no reason why, does not make sense from any standpoint. my desire, is to understand what prompted the often immobile leader of the site, to take actions that are, from any and all available data, counter intuitive to the site. you can say it's speculation all you want, but at the end of the day, both the intent, and end result of the modifications, was a net plus for the site, by any and all known data. if YCMaker has any info that counteracts this, i would be able to understand why he did such. as of yet, there is none. so his actions, in comparison to tormented's own, are irrational. and humans being irrational in general, does not count as a defense on a case by case.

 

 

ok, we aren't consumers, the example still stands. we still wish to know the terms and restrictions to the product to prevent us from hitting invisible walls. 

 

 

not only is it still a dick move, but as you yourself can likely attest, it's been more than one time, and it is consistent, in that it is every time you promise to follow through on a plan with that friend.

 

dick move is addressing the action, not the person. and whether or not you owe it to somebody, telling them you will do something, and then not doing it, remains a dick move. i don't expect him to do anything, i've grown familiar with that, but i do wish that he would stop doing things that have no solid reason behind them beyond "it's my site i can do whatever i wish"

 

i didn't put him in that light, his actions did. and you, appear to be saying that he is beyond any criticism pointed towards him (may be misinterpreting that, but that is what it seems like to me). he is not so flawless that criticizing his actions is wrong in and of itself. this is one of those times where his actions, under the available scope of information that we have, qualify for the term "dick move".

[Blake]

The issue is that being a dick move doesn't make it incorrect.

 

This is an example of being in the right while being a douchebag. We were in the wrong with hopes for improving things.

 

We can argue semantics, we can scream at each other or at YCMaker, we can keep debating and talking about it like this... But what does that gain us? What do we earn from having a discussion based on the morality and ethics of what has occurred?

[vla1ne]

The issue is that being a dick move doesn't make it incorrect.

 

This is an example of being in the right while being a douchebag. We were in the wrong with hopes for improving things.

 

We can argue semantics, we can scream at each other or at YCMaker, we can keep debating and talking about it like this... But what does that gain us? What do we earn from having a discussion based on the morality and ethics of what has occurred?

i agree there.

 

i can't agree there. it's his site, so his actions are automatically in the right regardless of opposing opinion, but hoping to improve the site, (and i believe we all do appreciate the changes already enacted) is not the wrong sentiment, it was simply prevented from being fully realized, by the person at the top.

 

an interesting discussion, views different from ours, and an outlet for any stress at the action itself?

[Blake]

i agree there.

 

i can't agree there. it's his site, so his actions are automatically in the right regardless of opposing opinion, but hoping to improve the site, (and i believe we all do appreciate the changes already enacted) is not the wrong sentiment, it was simply prevented from being fully realized, by the person at the top.

 

an interesting discussion, views different from ours, and an outlet for any stress at the action itself?

He is automatically right, because his source of income was threatened. And because he has all the power. As I said, our hero is his villain, given the circumstances. Why he can't confer with us is another matter, but he is "in the right".

 

That sounds more like a debate topic specifically for this purpose, if that's the case. But that's nitpicking.

[Simping For Hina]

I don't this his actions were in the right of our opinion, they are in his right to do so. I never said that what he does doing was morally right, and I already brought up the point of semantics.

 

What we are doing is not positive or rational, we forced are we to change the site which is objectively wrong and subjectively right. YCMaker didn't give us permission to do so. If we look at it from the situation where it should be, we are in his house or on his own property and we are changing things without his permission. This is his property and are just guests.

Asking for reason and expecting it to come, from that sentiment, is entitlement and he has every right to kick us out of it. Whether you call it entitlement or not, I don't care. Words don't mean anything, but YCMaker can just kick us out and unwelcome us all he wants. We are not consumers, we are not anything more than just guests and there never needs to be a reason to kick someone out of a place where the guests are welcomed. At the end of the day, it is up to the one running it and we are under no jurisdiction to ask why or receive any reason as to that.

[vla1ne]

He is automatically right, because his source of income was threatened. And because he has all the power. As I said, our hero is his villain, given the circumstances. Why he can't confer with us is another matter, but he is "in the right".

 

That sounds more like a debate topic specifically for this purpose, if that's the case. But that's nitpicking.

i could argue that it was not under threat, in fact, i could likely argue that the attempt to improve the site would increase profits, if only minimally. i also can't quite agree that our hero is his villain. as what would benefit him, is a site that attracts more people, leading to more revenue, and the planned improvements, were made with that in mind. can't deny that they are also for the comfort of the current residents, but choices arguably lead to more people finding at least something on the site worth returning for, and repeat visitors are worth more than one time visitors in most cases. i'd argue that he wrongly perceived the actions themselves, and took actions to end said actions which may not actually be for the best in the long term. yeah, he's in the "right" but i don't think that makes the action any better for being so.

 

What we are doing is not positive or rational, we forced are we to change the site which is objectively wrong and subjectively right. YCMaker didn't give us permission to do so. If we look at it from the situation where it should be, we are in his house or on his own property and we are changing things without his permission. This is his property and are just guests.

 

Asking for reason and expecting it to come, from that sentiment, is entitlement and he has every right to kick us out of it. Whether you call it entitlement or not, I don't care. Words don't mean anything, but YCMaker can just kick us out and unwelcome us all he wants. We are not consumers, we are not anything more than just guests and there never needs to be a reason to kick someone out of a place where the guests are welcomed. At the end of the day, it is up to the one running it and we are under no jurisdiction to ask why or receive any reason as to that.

that's fair enough, but still 

 

 

he does have the right to kick people out, but asking him to explain why, instead of just doing so, is a common courtesy, and desiring common courtesy is more than perfectly legitimate. you're right that you can kick anybody you like out if you own the house, but what would you say of somebody who did so at irregular intervals? with no reason given? would you wish to return to that house? would you advise that house to anybody? or would you point out somewhere better? in fact, that might be a better endeavor than simply sitting around here. making a better site, and being an active admin, would be infinitely more productive than arguing semantics here, where our words are equally useless.

[Blake]

i could argue that it was not under threat, in fact, i could likely argue that the attempt to improve the site would increase profits, if only minimally. i also can't quite agree that our hero is his villain. as what would benefit him, is a site that attracts more people, leading to more revenue, and the planned improvements, were made with that in mind. can't deny that they are also for the comfort of the current residents, but choices arguably lead to more people finding at least something on the site worth returning for, and repeat visitors are worth more than one time visitors in most cases. i'd argue that he wrongly perceived the actions themselves, and took actions to end said actions which may not actually be for the best in the long term. yeah, he's in the "right" but i don't think that makes the action any better for being so.

Tormey literally said he had the ability to deny his cash flow. Regardless of whether or not we did it, it was possible, and that means he had to step in.

 

You're arguing what he sees as a benefit to him. We do not have his perspective.

 

The action is kinda morally grey. I don't think there's an argument against that. But he is "right". Doing the wrong thing can be correct, and the right thing incorrect.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

he can get his ass in ycm and tell us why he did what he did

[Simping For Hina]

i could argue that it was not under threat, in fact, i could likely argue that the attempt to improve the site would increase profits, if only minimally. i also can't quite agree that our hero is his villain. as what would benefit him, is a site that attracts more people, leading to more revenue, and the planned improvements, were made with that in mind. can't deny that they are also for the comfort of the current residents, but choices arguably lead to more people finding at least something on the site worth returning for, and repeat visitors are worth more than one time visitors in most cases. i'd argue that he wrongly perceived the actions themselves, and took actions to end said actions which may not actually be for the best in the long term. yeah, he's in the "right" but i don't think that makes the action any better for being so.

You can argue a lot of things, that's cool. Surface level, we just ran into his house and moved things around and expecting him to be okay with it. You'll just arguing semantics on the point of the consumer, and this thread has nothing to do with that. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest, but they are nothing but perspective-based outlooks that are seem in an abstract form without the decisive developmental means of understanding or warranting an understanding from that lack of knowledge that could be pertained.

 

What I am saying is that: We have all of this insight, you surely do, in the perspective of being a part of the site and being a member who actively knows what is going on. YCMaker doesn't and probably has other obligations rather than just putting time onto a forum that he made in 2008. You choose to be here, so your outlook is much different and taken from a different place where things could be seen as good for the members, and arguments could be made for the enhancement of this forum.

YCMaker, at what we know, isn't on that same basis and is doing other things that divert his time, so learning about this place means contractual nothing and should mean anything. The semantics that you reign are warranted by the state that you are in and have acknowledgement in. YCMaker isn't that, nor does he need to be. Expecting him to work on the moral plane of oneself is nothing objective, and that is what seems like you are presenting; YCMaker to be on the same basis, at foundation, as the members here, to recognize and put time into recognizing just that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

we can make this site so miserably awful his rev stream dries up even now btw

[Simping For Hina]

he can get his ass in ycm and tell us why he did what he did

Yes, but that is still repetitive. He doesn't have to, and whether or not it is beneficial to us or him is morally grey. At the end of the day, I will repeat myself, this is a cashgrab and many cashgrabs are cast aside once they start and consistently grab cash. This is nothing but a means of obtaining money, which is all fine from YCMaker, and we have no reason to act like it is in our mind to demand him to come here. Putting negative attributes toward him is a demand, and an expectation. I go in circles: We are acting entitled to more of this site than what we are obligated to, and the moral grey area doesn't pertain to our subjectivity to this site.

we can make this site so miserably awful his rev stream dries up even now btw

That also wouldn't do anything major since most of his revenue comes from the card maker. Guests are counted from that, at their highest. Plus, our activity would still be giving him revenue. Like going to go seaworld to protest, but paying to get into seaworld. You're still helping them by providing them revenue.

[vla1ne]

we can make this site so miserably awful his rev stream dries up even now btw

stop that. that really would be more wrong than anything we'd actually done.

 

You can argue a lot of things, that's cool. Surface level, we just ran into his house and moved things around and expecting him to be okay with it. You'll just arguing semantics on the point of the consumer, and this thread has nothing to do with that. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest, but they are nothing but perspective-based outlooks that are seem in an abstract form without the decisive developmental means of understanding or warranting an understanding from that lack of knowledge that could be pertained.

 

What I am saying is that: We have all of this insight, you surely do, in the perspective of being a part of the site and being a member who actively knows what is going on. YCMaker doesn't and probably has other obligations rather than just putting time onto a forum that he made in 2008. You choose to be here, so your outlook is much different and taken from a different place where things could be seen as good for the members, and arguments could be made for the enhancement of this forum.

YCMaker, at what we know, isn't on that same basis and is doing other things that divert his time, so learning about this place means contractual nothing and should mean anything. The semantics that you reign are warranted by the state that you are in and have acknowledgement in. YCMaker isn't that, nor does he need to be. Expecting him to work on the moral plane of oneself is nothing objective, and that is what seems like you are presenting; YCMaker to be on the same basis, at foundation, as the members here, to recognize and put time into recognizing just that.

improving the site's look, making it easier to navigate, updating the card creator, ect. these are all hard positives. unless you have something saying otherwise. i'm not putting up semantics, i'm giving concrete examples of what would be a benefit for the site, and by extension, his cashflow. (better cardmaker would mean more people could come here to make more and better card types. in addition removing any glitches would make the saving and creation of cards more consistent, both factors leading to more ad revenue from  bigger traffic, possibly even increasing repeat visitors, further steadying, and possibly increasing his cashflow) all of my examples check out from a business perspective. so arguing that we're harming the business doesn't check out, all of my examples check out from a site perspective, improvements that are agreed upon by the sites members (a more varied pool than one person) would be far more likely to be approved of by the guests, and my desire to speak with him is to know what his exact thoughts are, so i can have a proper discussion of them, instead of playing this guessing game at his every action. do you have anything but abstract rebuttals?

 

ok, so we're here more often, know more about how the site, and possibly the game, have evolved, see more guests and new members come and go, and are trying to make it better not just for us, but to bring in more people, which, if he's thinking about money, as the below post implies, can't help but be good for him. communication, would help increase any effective improvements, or at least not create more invisible walls, further increasing site quality, attracting more people, and potentially increasing his cashflow. my arguments have been for both us, guests, and him. i've covered every base in  almost every post. read back, i've argued from many angles as to why tormey's (among others from the past's) actions are good for YCMaker on the monetary front, and why communication would benefit YCMaker on that same front. i'm arguing from a position that would like to see all parties benefit more, because i like the site, and would like to see it improve even further.

I want him to simply speak with us, not even for long, just enough that we can reach understanding. that may be enough to convince him, but maybe not, i simply want to know where he's coming from better, so that i can more accurately address his points. and what exactly is wrong with that?

 

 

 

Tormey literally said he had the ability to deny his cash flow. Regardless of whether or not we did it, it was possible, and that means he had to step in.

 

You're arguing what he sees as a benefit to him. We do not have his perspective.

 

The action is kinda morally grey. I don't think there's an argument against that. But he is "right". Doing the wrong thing can be correct, and the right thing incorrect.

oh? that's actually new info for me. though i still disagree with the action, i can see why under that light. 

 

i was arguing hard positives. my examples were clear positives, under any scope. the knowledge that tormey actually could dry the cashflow does account for any needed negatives though.

 

yep, and that just makes the situation suck all the more.

[VCR_CAT]

Honestly, all this "But was he in the right" talk is frankly a waste of time. We want the site to be better, yes. That's not wrong. We took measures to make the site a better place, albeit in less-than-legitimate means, yes. Were out actions harmful? No. But does it make sense for someone to take measures against person(s) that start talking about usurping his income and start doing things that are moving in an adjacent direction? I mean, yes. It does make sense.

 

But what point is there to nailing down the semantics to what was right or wrong at this point? We're not accomplishing anything, and it won't change anything that's happened. It just reads as hot air to me, and we need to instead be talking about what we're doing or what we're going to do.

 

The most constructive path, I can see, is if we somehow managed to open that discussion with YCMaker; get talks about improving the site, whether it still remain in his control or not, and move forward. This has the most potential for getting everything we want without losing anything, but the problem is that it depends entirely on YCMaker's willingness to talk or not. His track record isn't too stellar right now.

 

Up next is ye olde "Make our own alternative and move out". This also can get everything we want in making a YCM what we want it to be. If all goes well on our own card-maker front, it's entirely possible that we just make an updated and more sound alternative and just... ditch this place. The problem with this one is the money required in getting that all set up and everything, and who want heading that sort of project.

 

Continuing with under-the-table improvements by just bypassing YCMaker's actions is a possibility, but it won't address everything on our extensive wishlist. It'll make some nice quality-of-life improvements, but there's only so much we can do without the site under our control, and this is ignoring the implications of the actions and depends on if we can be successful in it. I don't see anything wrong with going through with these if YCMaker ultimately maintains ownership and our actions only work towards building up the site, but that doesn't mean I don't understand YCMaker's stance on wanting to shut it down, because it is people taking his keys and using his equipment without his permission. Noble goals, sure, but it'd piss anyone off.

 

Finally there's the "Usurp" option, but that also looks at some pretty dire consequences if it doesn't fall through. If we were lucky it would just be IPBoards handing control back to YCMaker and things continue as normal, but it could get worse than that with consequences ranging from the site shutting down to potential law suits. Personally, I would rather not we take this option.

 

We need to decide where we want to go with improving the site, though. If we're content with where things are, and continue work on the cardmaker, that's fine. We can focus on community improvements and things that don't involve hardware work, and that could lead to a better site. But if there are things we still yet want changed or improved, we need to make a decision on what to do, and how to do it. With the way things are now, I wouldn't be surprised if we were just stuck in a situation where we make the most out of what little we have to work with.

[Sunshine Jesse]

While we don't deserve anything from YCMaker himself, we certainly deserve something better. In my view, anything other than a completely new site or control over this one is just settling for mediocrity. We're capping out our potential if we do, and I find that unacceptable.

 

I'm absolutely not willing to settle for mediocrity.

 

It's part of the reason I've dipped from this site multiple times. And while I'm not saying I'm going to quit or anything over this, I am saying that I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is and help fund and create a new one.

 

This was all the confirmation we needed that things will never truly be able to improve beyond optics. All the time and effort we invested in the site means little in the grand scheme of things as our efforts can just be undone by someone who's only interested in making money from ad revenue. Which is fine- money is money- but I'd hope that we ourselves will stop being satisfied putting work in for a site whose direction is ultimately decided by an endless stream of hapless 11 year olds that think their Goku the Forbidden One card is their life's work.

 

I'm not asking everyone on the site to suddenly move to a new one. I'm just asking the people who truly care to help create something that makes everyone else want to.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

the sentiment of "funk YCM, let's make sure new site with blackjack and hookers" isn't a new one. It's been tried, and didn't work. And back then, YCM was a hell of a lot worse than it is now.

[Sunshine Jesse]

the sentiment of "funk YCM, let's make sure new site with blackjack and hookers" isn't a new one. It's been tried, and didn't work. And back then, YCM was a hell of a lot worse than it is now.

I'm well aware but I personally have enough things in mind and enough projects on the back burner to make it something other than YCM with blackjack and hookers.

 

These kinds of things generally fail because they're solely focused on being replacements. There's no draw other than "the same, but better!", and there's no reason it only has to be that.