Current Post On Trae’s Blog:
So it was literally more than twenty years ago that I first put one of my dumbest creations on the internet: The Steven Seagal Movie Generator.
Like I seriously publicly launched that dumb thing back in 2004, and for those of you who were unaware, it assembles a title, cast and plot of a fake Steven Seagal movie from elements of his (real) bad films.
I honestly got the idea from a former-friend, who in high school wrote a comedic piece about how you could mash up the titles of Seagal films in the weird underground "newspaper" that got handed out for a few years. But I took it a few steps further, and made a whole thing.
Mostly it just sat there though, a thing I made once and never went back to. I followed it up with the Sci-Fi Channel Movie Generator (later retitled the Syfy Movie Generator) in 2008. I spent more time on that one, doing a later design update that made the "Syfy" movies show up on a fake DVD back cover.
But the Steven Seagal generator just sort of sat there, untouched.
And Steven Seagal kept making (terrible) movies with (predictable) titles. Like a lot. But the generator still only spat out movies culled from the nineties and early 2000s, ignoring all of his new stuff. There was a whole library of awful movies that just weren't in there, and it made the generator feel less relevant.
So, uh, I went and did something about that today.
First off, I redesigned the page. Now it looks like the back of a VHS tape box. Then I loaded the elements of about twenty-five additional films into the generator. And that was harder than I thought it would be, since some of the films are so obscure that they're not well documented. I literally had to do some deep research to figure out a lot of the basic plot details that are now in the generator.
But I did it.
And it's done.
And the generator is now fully loaded.
It's still useless and dumb, though.
![Nerd & Tie[dot]Social Forums](https://www.nerdandtie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/natsocial-nicepreview-square-300x300.png)
I understand this is to compare two types of meetings, the ‘reasonable’ way and an ‘unreasonable’ way (‘right’ and ‘wrong’ may be a stretch)… but I keep thinking without knowing the rest of the situation, this may be an accurate assessment of Joey.
I don’t know if either one is RIGHT — I mean, Bork Con keeps putting a guy in a position of authority who just suggested something that could lead to peoples deaths
I mean, they put a guy in charge who insisted using the ashes of a dead person for some insane ritual.
However, I think this is a prime example of “decorum does not mean maturity within an organization.” I think folks get a random hair up their ass about how an event should be governed and see all these cspan shows thinking that’s how things should be done. Yet fail to realize that ensuring a semi-professional (SEMI, yes, not entirely. fer chrissake you shouldn’t take yourselves THAT seriously) atmosphere instead of a strict decorum is what actually gets things done.
I mean, for ffs, our board once voted on a budget issue in the middle of an auction (to help support another convention, btw) only because 3 members were present. (This ended hilariously and good for those curious)
It has to be the right tool for the right job. Parliamentary procedure isn’t required for a concom of what looks to be seven people. On the other hand, as orgs grow larger, some sort of meeting format is required or it just turns into chaos. Where the sweet spot between needing rules and rules being in the way will always depend on the group.
I’m not sure how the system ended up randomly assigning you the “Glenn” avatar, but it makes me very happy that it did.