Starbuck wrote:Been away for a few days....still nothing?

Come back in June.

charnode wrote:Also nice to follow the Ringu / Vic convo. Something surprisingly enjoyable in an otherwise grim thread.

Agreed; that conversation was my favourite part of this entire thread, and the timing made me seriously question my decision to take time off from this forum :) Still, I think it's probably now business-as-usual again here. I also reckon a week is long enough for the hypothetical new year's resolution I wishfully ascribed to Josh to have been actioned, so I think I shall bid you all adieu for a while. (Probably :)

I still believe Josh is working hard on Limit Theory. A few months ago he indicated that his enthusiasm and desire to complete this game were as strong as ever several years down the track, so I remain confident that it's going to happen. I still don't much mind how long it takes, either (my previous guess was we wouldn't see a final release before the end of 2018, and I've had no reason to modify that); but I've concluded that there's little point in coming here every day when Josh is MIA for months on end.

I really hope something causes him to see the light, and start providing some kind of updates again. Single-sentence updates once a week would be good enough for me. No details necessary. No hype or explanations or justifications or apologies or estimates or anything like that. Just the bare-minimum that tells us "yep, things are still happening in LT land; see you next week". I feel that would keep a lot of backers content. Heck, at this point our expectations are so low they'd be easy to satisfy! It would definitely stave off the recurring "I guess LT is dead" gloom.

I'll definitely be back once Josh gives us something to talk about. (On the plus side, I'm sure that'll be a pretty good day :)

Anticipated ongoing LT-silence notwithstanding, I hope that 2017 is good to you all!

Victor Tombs wrote:

Talvieno wrote:I would assume that would mean I'm not one of the more mature members, right?

It was a reference to age, Nathan. Although I will admit I do find some of the younger members here puzzling at times. *chuckle*

I rarely puzzle these days..

Employee 2-4601 wrote:snip...
I still believe Josh is working hard on Limit Theory.

Personally, I feel that if he IS working hard on Limit Theory, it's in a mad, sad, desperate attempt to make the entire mess that he's created into some semblance of a game he once envisioned. In the normal sense of "working hard on Limit Theory", I don't believe it at all, sorry to say.

Employee 2-4601 wrote:snip...
(On the plus side, I'm sure that'll be a pretty good day

Anticipated ongoing LT-silence notwithstanding, I hope that 2017 is good to you all!

Ya'll too!

NonBritGit wrote:

Employee 2-4601 wrote:snip...
I still believe Josh is working hard on Limit Theory.

Personally, I feel that if he IS working hard on Limit Theory, it's in a mad, sad, desperate attempt to make the entire mess that he's created into some semblance of a game he once envisioned. In the normal sense of "working hard on Limit Theory", I don't believe it at all, sorry to say.

I don't think he's working on it at all. Crazy/desperate or not.

He went silent right after he helped his girlfriend move across the country to start her job at a new software company. The same GF who just recently cropped him out of her profile picture on Facebook.

He had his previous break down after (apparently) breaking up with his GF before Alexandra.

It doesn't take much reading between the lines sadly.

Zanteogo wrote:I don't think he's working on it at all. Crazy/desperate or not.

If he is still working on it, I strongly hope he has good backups - if last time was an indication, he could very likely be writing code that is not just bad, but actively destabilising everything.

Ringu wrote:

Victor Tombs wrote:I believe Silver was being playful and not disrespectful.

and very amusing too, I actually LOL'ed which, given that I'm at work in the office and really shouldn't have been on the site at all, attracted some unwanted attention

Glad I could make everyone laugh.

Victor Tombs wrote:I'm of the opinion that the only important thing missing from these forums is some input from their owner.

Does that count as a genuine on-topic contribution to this thread?

I agree, and yes, technically it counts. :V It is a source of disgruntled forumites. :V

Every time I read a post that contains personal information about Josh I feel uncomfortable. At no stage of backing LT or contributing to this forum did I think I had a piece of Josh, or that he owed me anything, and that it would be OK for me to effectively stalk him over the net.

I recommend that anyone about to post such stuff take a step back and ask: who benefits from this post? If the answer does not include Josh, then don't post it. If the answer is public interest, or some variant of, then consider: who are you to know what the community wants? I can promise you one thing - you don't speak for me, and I don't want to see it.

mcsven wrote:Every time I read a post that contains personal information about Josh I feel uncomfortable. At no stage of backing LT or contributing to this forum did I think I had a piece of Josh, or that he owed me anything, and that it would be OK for me to effectively stalk him over the net.

I recommend that anyone about to post such stuff take a step back and ask: who benefits from this post? If the answer does not include Josh, then don't post it. If the answer is public interest, or some variant of, then consider: who are you to know what the community wants? I can promise you one thing - you don't speak for me, and I don't want to see it.

I don't care much at this point. Josh isn't saying anything to anyone on the internet and it's kind of annoying. When people talk about Josh and other information that is publicly available I see no reason why it should be censored. It's not like people are looking up Josh's grades from college or high school and then posting them here. It's not like people are posting Josh's medical history here either. I believe you may be a bit to sensitive about the kind of discussion that has occurred.

Josh has made his Girl Friends publicly known, and Alex even has an account on these forums and was on IRC as femnode for some time. It's not like it's a secret that they were dating or anything.

If the information I just shared bothers you then you might have bigger things to worry about.

At a certain point, this kind of research becomes doxxing. We probably disagree on where the threshold is, but dragging Josh's life beyond LT development is (in my opinion) a researching too far.

Grumblesaur wrote:At a certain point, this kind of research becomes doxxing. We probably disagree on where the threshold is, but dragging Josh's life beyond LT development is (in my opinion) a researching too far.

I think it's pretty clear he's had another incident. Doxxing him won't help the situation.

Doxxing is making private information public with malicious intent, not pointing something out in a public profile photo.

Dinosawer wrote:Doxxing is making private information public with malicious intent, not pointing something out in a public profile photo.

I didn't say that this particular instance was doxxing, but rather I implied that this kind of obsessive analysis of Josh's life is likely to drive someone to doxxing.

However, doxxing or no, I feel that many of the exercises in Josh research are inappropriate to share. Despite the fact that the information is public, it is some attempt to unfold the mysteries of Josh's private life and I think we do him a disservice by encroaching upon his privacy.

Yes, he is responsible for a task which many of us invested in and he has not delivered, but from one human being to another we ought to respect the boundary between his life as a private individual and his life as a developer. A lot of people think it's creepy to go through other people's social media (regardless of privacy settings) when you don't know them personally. (Possible exceptions to this being Twitter feeds.)

And anyway, these little niblets of information are only fuel for more conjecture, and at that, it seems like most of the crowd here is more interested in merely cementing their own views and not considering other possibilities. On that note, I'll say it once more: we just don't know.

mcsven wrote:Every time I read a post that contains personal information about Josh I feel uncomfortable. At no stage of backing LT or contributing to this forum did I think I had a piece of Josh, or that he owed me anything, and that it would be OK for me to effectively stalk him over the net.

I recommend that anyone about to post such stuff take a step back and ask: who benefits from this post? If the answer does not include Josh, then don't post it. If the answer is public interest, or some variant of, then consider: who are you to know what the community wants? I can promise you one thing - you don't speak for me, and I don't want to see it.

Grumblesaur wrote:At a certain point, this kind of research becomes doxxing. We probably disagree on where the threshold is, but dragging Josh's life beyond LT development is (in my opinion) a researching too far.

I agree with every word of these.

Please respect the privacy of other people.

Flatfingers wrote:

mcsven wrote:Every time I read a post that contains personal information about Josh I feel uncomfortable. At no stage of backing LT or contributing to this forum did I think I had a piece of Josh, or that he owed me anything, and that it would be OK for me to effectively stalk him over the net.

I recommend that anyone about to post such stuff take a step back and ask: who benefits from this post? If the answer does not include Josh, then don't post it. If the answer is public interest, or some variant of, then consider: who are you to know what the community wants? I can promise you one thing - you don't speak for me, and I don't want to see it.

Grumblesaur wrote:At a certain point, this kind of research becomes doxxing. We probably disagree on where the threshold is, but dragging Josh's life beyond LT development is (in my opinion) a researching too far.

I agree with every word of these.

Please respect the privacy of other people.

I do understand both of your points of view on this, however, I personally feel that once someone brings the information to us willingly it becomes free game. (They both posted here, they both gave their personal relationship info, Josh told us he was helping her move across the country on the forum). The only bit that wasn't presented on the forum was the information on her (public) profile picture. I added in a bit of speculation on top of it to be fair.

Now why would I do this? I didn't do it to bring shame anyone or out of some weird perversion of putting out semi-personal stuff for everyone to see. I feel it's very relevant to whether or not we can actually expect this game development to finish. We know Josh's history. When it seems to be repeating it's self and we know the outcome of this, people should know. Perhaps the pattern is easy to spot for the regulars here, and perhaps for us it doesn't need to be said. However, not everyone's a regular. If your just some backer who visits here every 3 months or so stuff like this is very relevant.

Again, I didn't post anything out of spite. However, lets be honest here. Josh is being more than disrespectful with his actions right now. There is zero good reason why he can't have someone else post for him to let everyone at least know if Limit Theory is dead or not. I can understand his mental illness not letting him post himself, however, there just can't be NO one he is talking to who can't figure out how to post here.

As I said, I understand both of your points of view. I don't plan on posting any more "public but private" stuff regardless, unless it's something beyond relevant. (like Josh declaring LT dead somewhere else)