Talk:Newgrounds/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The new Wikigrounds

The Newgrounds wiki's been moved, that's why the link was broken. The current one's at this site as of now. Should I update the link myself or do I need some kind of go-ahead? And if you don't mind, it's also getting flooded with crap, would some NG Wikipedians help us clean up the site? --24.164.186.253 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of different Wikigrounds sites. One has mostly protected pages, the other is this one: [1] Anyone wanting to help here would be appreciated.

IceDragon64 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured on Virus Alert Video

In the video of "Weird Al" Yankovic, the scene where the computer, person's head, and cat's head pops, the computer shows a Newgrounds logo.

Add it or not?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.220.174 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 7 November 2006

No wonder, it's made by the creator of "Retarted Animal Babies. His characters make cameo appearances too. Esn 10:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If a section were added on how Newgrounds was the launching pad for the careers of several artists, I think that could certainly be mentioned in there. It may be a bit too early to add in a section like that though, because although I feel that some Newgrounders are in the process of rising to fame, there isn't anything really specific yet. Some guys like Robert Benfer (aka Knox) are directing feature films with some big people, but they are still not considered notable enough for wikipedia. If the Robert Benfer page ever gets undeleted and stays undeleted for a month, perhaps that will be a sign that it's time to start such a section.

On the other hand, you could just start a "Newgrounds in pop culture" section. That would be easiest, I think. Does anybody know any other instances of Newgrounds appearing somewhere? Esn 06:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am experiencing viruses from newgrounds.com. I have been using Windows XP SP2 and Avast 4.6 Home edition with the newwest update. However, when I visit the site my Avast start to alert me various type of viruses in various locations of my harddrive such as system32 and temporary internet folder. I command my Avast to take action in deleting them all. The virus alert still pop-up even I delete them when them pop, one-by-one alert. In addition, my cpu usage is around 80% and a icon, red circle with white cross, appear on my bottom right of my screen (near the clock). I cannot do anything with virus alert on my screen, so I re-install my OS. Few days later, I enter the site again and experiencing the same problem. I doubt that this may have caused by the website. Please, take this notice to other people if someone faces the same problem. P.S. (with Internet Explorer 6.0) The second time I visit,I did not face Avast virus alert at the home page (www.newgrounds.com). But I face the virus alert when I click the link "game". My browser status is: "dose not response". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill4444 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 January 2007

Hmm... just out of curiosity, which internet browser do you use? Esn 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Newgrounds does not give you viruses on purpose, it's the adds and pop-ups caused by their sponsors. However, the new redesign will have "No more pop-ups. Period."

Obvious Vandalism

Hi - this article is currently vandalized. I'm a newbie here so someone who knows how should revert the article to some previous version or fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.242.14 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 November 2006

Hey there. Someone fixed it (this page gets vandalized regularly, so people watch it), but I may as well explain. To fix vandalism, click on the "history" button at the top, seek out the last non-vandalized version of the page (you can compare different versions), then revert to it. To revert to it, click on the date for that version in "history" - this will allow you to see what the article looked like at that time. Now click "edit" - you'll be editing the old version of the article. Now save, and write "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary so people will know what you did. Esn 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Adds

I think that we should add in that Newgrounds is full of Hentai adds. If you have visted the site there are many things such as adds with girls saying stuff about looking at naked anmie girls, games such as Hentai Quizes, and a entire game section on Hentai.Sonic34 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Good old Toby

The trouble is that this section may become outdated pretty soon since Newgrounds is looking into overhauling its entire advertising system, including possibly doing away with pop-ups ([2]). But the thing about Newgrounds containing adult material is relevant - maybe the article should mention that submissions can be rated anything from "everyone" to "mature" (I'm not sure if those are the exact names), and those ratings then appear next to the name of the submission on its page. Newgrounds is definitely not all family friendly, but it does have a system kinda like ESRB/film ratings. Esn 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

However Mr. Esn you can't call the rating system accurate or even trust worthy. Newgrounds runs on trust for that sort of thing until Tom or someone changes it otherwise. However the statement about the advertisements should be added for the time being, because even if you are not watching anything adult it still shows you the advertisements none the less. AngryStudent 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree re the "warning" about ads. Wikipedia is not meant to provide exhaustive commentary of every aspect of every article. If the website *featured* such material (e.g. a website about Hentai) then I'd agree that mention should be made. But this is not the case. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Newgrounds is has also been known to deliver trojans/malware to vulnerable systems. It tried to do so on my work laptop, but Norton Antivirus detected it. I am positively sure Newgrounds would try to take advantage of exploits to deliver malware. 71.247.129.209 13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The viruses are because of the pop-ups from their sponsors. I remember Tom Fulp clearly mentioning about that they do not want to spread malware/spyware/adware from their site and the new redesign is said to have no pop-ups anymore. --88.112.181.175 08:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikigrounds?

why was the wikigrounds link removed it's fairly important and has a nice selection of articles I mean it's a "newgrounds wiki" you aren't gonna get much more info then that on NG. --CartoonDiablo 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)CartoonDiablo

As of 6 December 2006, the link provided does not work (broken possibly?) If not, I would request an entire removal of the Wikigrounds link. --Specter01010 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The link has been replaced with the new one. Anyway, we'd like a couple of experienced Wikipedians to come over to help with some of the important articles, if they wouldn't mind. - KemCab --24.164.176.32 04:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikigrounds link: [3] IceDragon64 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two different wikigrounds. The one above is open use, the other is all locked and you need to aply to change info. Both have their merits and I hope they can both be used and appreciated.

I see that someone put a wikigrounds link into the Newgrounds article, then it was removed. Hmm difficult that one. As wikipedians we should want to support other wiki's and people who come to the Wkipedia article might want a wiki all about NG. However, the links at the bottom of the pages are generally expected to be respectable sources of info and neither of these wiki's qualify- I write for the wikia one, so I am not being bitchy. I know that this page should be about the article, but please give a little wiki a break!

IceDragon64 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing "moderators" section

I've removed the "moderators" section on the following grounds:

-it is listcruft

-the forums are not the reason that Newgrounds is notable and worthy of a wikipedia article

-the only people who may find the info usefull are users of the Newgrounds forums. They can already easily find the list of moderators at the bottom of every forum section.

Esn 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it completely fails on any sort of notability check, and is definately cruft. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we could add a little more about the BBS, maybe perhaps a brief description of each forum? Wikipeep 494 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

what

what do you do on newgrounds to submit a flash movie/game? - You make it in flash and submit the .swf file.

Updating

Is this article being updated for completeness and up-to-date information? It seems that there's a lot of information missing, and I don't know if anyone is contributing?

Is it being moderated? There's a lot of events that have happened and I'd be more than willing to update the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RWilliamKing (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

So would I, I think we need to focus in a little more on the histroy of Newgrounds, but I'm a little...inexperienced in editing so I don't wanna do it XD Wikipeep 494 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Redesign article?

Wouldn't that kind of thing be important to a wikpedia artcle? Yet there is no metion wha so ever of the site's upcoming redesign. But also I think there should be critisms on it, since the redesign is 99% complete yet it will be activated march 1st--68.217.5.43 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the things I wanted to mention on an update. Since there seems to be no response I'm going to take up the challenge of updating the article, assuming there are no objections --RWilliamKing 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, don't add it. Wait till the redesign is actually launched, then an update could be considered.Mackan 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of things that really should be on here, for example the concept of a 'crew', things which have come out of newgrounds that have hit popular culture, artists which have "made it" by starting out on newgrounds, the website update, elaborate on history especially the new office location, really a lot has happened. --RWilliamKing 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything you can find verifiable sources for (see WP:V and WP:RS).Mackan 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling I should run it through this talk section first before anything actually goes up to be sure it meets WP:V/WP:RS.

Hmmm...I was thinking we should create a section of Newgrounds history or maybe a timeline, then we could put in a little something about the redesign there. Wikipeep 494 03:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe a mention of the april fools joke on the redesign? -- MunchableSandwich 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your continuous dialogue on what should go in the article, I would say that you have it about right at present. You want to tell people what makes NG noteworthy from an outside point of view and enable them to make comparisons. Things like Numa Numa stretch out into the rest of the world. As the main contributor of one of Newgrounds many 'crews' I would say you cannot get into dealing with any of the crews in the article because- a) they don't affect the outside world like numa numa and b) where would you stop? The Lock Legion have almost everything the Clock crew have. I would say that a mention of Alien Hominid, the first flash-based game to hit the console, would be a better contender.IceDragon64 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Automated?

Are you guys sure that the system we use for users to vote on blamming entries is best described as 'automated'? I mean, a computer collates our data, but WE decide- 200 of us. I'm not quite sure how I would say it, but this isn't it. The only sense in which the system is 'unbiased' etc is that the site admin don't USUALLY make the decision, although they DO delete submissions. Anyone who has seen the trash which gets through on Clockday knows that 'unbiassed' is not a reasonable description.IceDragon64 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What The...

The Reference Page To The An. About BBC Suing Newgrounds For Teletubbie Fun Land Leads To A Porn Site With A Wagging Penis, A.K.A., Vandalism! Somebody Please Revert It To The Original Site! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.224.233 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

More vandalism arrghh!!! Revert it, please someone!

Update the in the media?

I don't have any sources, but I saw something on the news the other day about the V-Tech massacre game hosted on NG. Should I add it to "In the media"?

yes 67.162.108.111 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Problems of the Future, Today!

This is the 'slogan' of Newgrounds, present on its front page. Would this deserve mention, perhaps in the sidebar?

Its out of date now. The slogan is "Everything by Everyone". I don't know what a sidebar is, but the new one could maybe go in it if people want. IceDragon64 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Newgrounds Timeline and BBS

I remember seeing a timeline on Newgrounds in the article months ago, and I thought it was a good idea, but it was taken off. I think we should put it back on to sort of show an overview of Newgrounds history. I also think we need to add in a little more about the BBS because it's one of the most visited parts of the site by users. I don't know, perhaps describe a little bit about each forum? Anyone agree? Please help me make my page!! To help Wikipeep 494 make his page, please tell him through here. 03:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

-The newgrounds Timeline is located in the NG info on Newgrounds itself. It would be a little trivial to put it here when it still has no real significance to why the site is so popular.

Although the comment on General being the most popular forum is true, the number is way off. That could have possibly been taken from the highest thread ID number at the time, but that applies to all the threads in the BBS, even deleted ones. According to This (at the bottom of the list of forums), there are only approximately 869,000 threads currently viewable in the BBS. This number does consider the deleted threads. Furthermore, General only has approximately 572,000 threads; nowhere near the number currently listed in the article. Should we adjust the number of threads in General to the correct number of existing threads, or the total number of posts, or some combination of the two? LedgendGamer (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism

There is a section below the "In The Media" section that says "Famous NG users" full of profanity and stuff. Should someone delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.211.176 (talk • contribs).

Extra media stuff

The Super Flash Bros were mentioned in the UK magazine "Edge"

The flash animation series Xombie has been picked up to become a feature length film.

Alien Hominid has become a videogame for the PS2 or PS3 (I forget which)

NemFX 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Alien Hominid is currently out on Xbox, PS2, Gamecube, GBA, and the Xbox Live Arcade. --204.186.129.92 (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

As of today, the site is down, and the new redesign is being put up! I'm so excited! :D Wikipeep 494 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As of today, the site is finished, and it is SEXY. -HeckXX (G,W,U,V) 17:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As of today, the site is still NOT finished, about six features in ones profile, including looking at your reviews with replies, etc. are still non-functional:(

IceDragon64 22:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Redesign is not very noteworthy outside of NG and its users, so it should be reduced over time, then removed in 2009.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Redesign rewriting?

I personally don't think the news of the redesign itself is Wikiworthy. However, the significance of the changes could be important in the description of the site in the article. Can anyone who thinks of something about the July 2007 redesign, which affects the description of the site please note it here. Then, in a while, when we have talked it over a bit we can put in any changes we can get some kind of consensus on. Is that cool? IceDragon64 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I still don't think the redesign is Wikiworthy. I can't see why anyone other than NGers would be interested in a set of changes which don't really affect the basic working of the site. From an outside point of view the site would be described in just the same way. Remember, NG has been redesigned much more substantialy before and it will be again. However, since some people seem determined to put in something on the subject (without discussing it) I have edited what has been written, but left a short paragraph. I moved it down to the bottom becuase I am certain that it is not amongst the first things that people might need to learn about who come to this page. I removed the section about what people did for 1.5 days becuase it was poorly written, did not make much sense, was a massive exageration ('most members'? what, hundreds of thousands of us?) and is of no long-term significance, certainly not outside of the membership.

IceDragon64 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

'See Also' Links criteria?

I see a list of links at the bottom- Alien Hominid, Salad Fingers etc. What is this supposed to be? What are the criteria for inclusion? We need to set this out here, otherwise will will have awkward situations, don't you think?

IceDragon64 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Still Exist..."

I don't like the phrase "still exist as a result of the auto-deleting system". They "still exist" as a result of them NOT being deleted, its the ones that are Blammed that are affected by the auto delete system. Wouldn't the phrase "survived the delete-system" be better.

IceDragon64 14:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one said anything, so I will Be Bold...

IceDragon64 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

many people in the world submit flash movies, also many of them have no talent and still submit them for fun. So many users are tired of this so tom decided to put on some requirements. so people would stop spamming the entire place.209.250.162.49 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a point here, Tom put a list in defining what is and isn't acceptable and the page doesn't mention it. I might reread those requirements and put in a ref. to it sometime- or someone else can? IceDragon64 (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would refrase that as "cheating the system" or "Not following the rules". A few major casues towards why movies that do not deserve to be protected.

• Many users refer to sock puppets, Massvoting, or misleading titles. Many cases where a movie has no significant importance could involve users to view them as artwork. Simply Users like that would be as much as a "suckup". Such cases where the activity could be corrupt enough to be a new way of the system.

• A solution to solve the problem: present the case to the Admins/mods, Give them a sufficiant enough reasons why the movies do not deserve to stay. If the movie truly does not follow the urles or has completely passed the gauntlet and cheated its way into the collection then there is a significant problem we may have to worry about. but such cases are not so severe.Davidzx (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting talk, but how do you relate it to writing the page on Wikipedia? IceDragon64 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Auto-delete?

From the point of view of the Tom & co, the system is automatic. It saves them from having to make decisions on hundreds of flash per day, unless they want to. Its also automatic in the sense that no-one presses a button to actually remove the sub.- once the votes are counted it just happens. However, from the outside world's point of view its not "automatic"- one of the great selling points of the site is that WE decide. It is also, therefore, as has been pointed out elsewhere in these discussions, not "impartial", from our point of view. I don't know how we should write this, but it doesn't seem like the best way of putting it, yet. Suggestions?

IceDragon64 14:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ratings visible?

I don't know how long this "under judgement" phase lasts, but every single submission I've ever seen (at least in the audio portal) lets you see the current score, even with only two or three prior votes.Gargomon251 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Flash Portal, submissions with less than 200 votes are considered "Under Judgment" and have their average scores hidden. I don't think this happens in the Audio Portal, but I'm not exactly the one to ask. Lordio 06:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, because Audio Portal submissions are not judged and removed if unpopular in the same way. Lordio- thanks for keeping an eye on this one- contact me if you have any questions.

IceDragon64 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Redesign Statement query

The last part of the main begining paragraphs is a statement about the redesign, which contains the following statement: "Though many of the features included within the site, many other features have been added." I don't know what the writer was trying to say here, it doesn't make sense as it is. I will change it to "Many of the features within the site have been changed and many new features have been added" soon, unless there are any objections. In fact, as far as I know despite the changed appearance, what has been removed, appart from PSP? IceDragon64 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A "Flash"?

Within NG, users often refer to a submission as a "flash", however, although the site is primarily for Flash animation and everything going in is in that format, I think the word is not a very good one to use here on an encyclopedia for the outside world. May I suggest that we use either "animation" or "submission"? Please comment IceDragon64 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally an animation would be something to submit. Normally it goes both ways.209.250.162.49 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose one should call it a 'submission' when you are talking about submitting it and an animation when it has been sumitted and protected. Yes/no?

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Loogiesquared (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC) No, since the ONLY thing was flash untill 2000 or so.

Tellybubby Fun Land

Misleading. The article would lead someone to believe the BBC filed a law suit based on the obvious parody of Tellytubbies, but it's more so the fact that originally, it was called Tellytubby Fun Land, and it was due to the fact that Tom used the copyrighted name. That's when it became Tellybubby Fun Land. Article needs to be expanded to make this aware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradocks16 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Censorship"?

Is that section really necessary? I'm virtually certain that it is incorrect---I believe that the N-word, at the very least, has been banned and unpostable for some time now. Besides, 'censorship'? Countless websites and forums don't allow racist speech. Seems pointless and should probably be removed. Slash Firestorm (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, whoever wrote it obviously wasn't aware that the word has always been blocked and is no new addition. There were previously methods to bypass the filter, but all methods aware to anyone have been disabled anyway. There really isn't anything necessary or worthwhile in that section of the article. Paradocks17 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The words "Nigger" and "Nigga" have been blocked since 2004, as you were not able to send a post which contained the words, even with spaces or dashes in between, so whichever person wrote the section obviously has no idea what he/she is writing about. NickBrett (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll remove it. Slash Firestorm (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It was reverted without comment. lolwut? The information is incorrect. Unless evidence to the contrary is provided, it needs to be deleted. Slash Firestorm (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They were blocked? as a NG user i can safely say that you can turn filters on/off Loogiesquared (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC) but you can still get banned... Loogiesquared (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, dudes I gotta say I AM THE ONE THAT DID IT!!!!!! and if I remeber correctly when I was on the audio portal side all kinds of reviews were like "That shit's bomb, nigga!" as well as responses. Although responses donb't censor it because I wrote up nigga on my Newgrounds profile the other day as a response to this one guy being gangsta.

So if you could take all this imformation and put it back up there, I may be inccorect (or at least what you guys think). But we should at least still have it up there with diferent imformation.

YaBoiKrakerz

I can't be certain one way or the other with reviews (and I'm not willing to get myself review banned and find out myself), but it has been unpostable in the BBS long before the redesign...although, as some mentioned, there were ways to get around the filters, such as with soft hyphens and whatnot (which have been plugged up as discovered). In any case, it's nothing notable---many forums don't permit any 'extreme' profanity at all, and banning of the more extreme racial epithets is not at all uncommon (as are clever dickheads trying to find ways around them). Unless there's been some notable controversy about their 'censorship', there is no reason to mention it, even if it was accurate (which is highly doubtful). Slash Firestorm (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you were to watch the Awesome series on Newgrounds by the artist Egoraptor, he uses the word "nigga" as ablack slang to make fun of the gangsta parts he has in his cartoons. I wrote the word two times in two of his cartoons to my suprise that he uses the word when he is white, you could use it in that example, however, the first time I wrote in a review back in early 2007 (Awesome the Hedghog) no one found it ofensesive and it wasn't censored the second time I wrote it last month (Metal Gear Awesome 2) it was....

YaBoiKrakerz

I know that using nigger in a review (not the less provocative nigga), regardless of the tricks used to get around the filter, is grounds for being review banned (smart assing your way around the rules is not tolerated)...but regardless, unless there's been a notable controversy over their 'censorship' (which, as I've said, is not at all uncommon among websites), the section should be deleted. There's nothing special about it, as it doesn't represent any major aspect of the site or any major issue covered by third party sources (nd it appears that the recent filter changes only applied to reviews, as the BBS has banned it for some time now). Slash Firestorm (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well...whatever, check out my profile here do you care to show off yours?

YaBoiKrakerz

I'll PM you, so as not to spam up the discussion page.

I'm pretty certain that I'm right about deleting the section, but I'd like to get a few other people to agree before I do it. Slash Firestorm (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but before you do that I wanted to ask you.

Well...you're profile is pretty cool (Hell, you shouldv'e told meh you made Flash). But why did you have a hentai pic on ur post!?

Hell, if you're affraid to get banned from droppin' an N-bomb on a review, then you should be scared as fuck if Tom sees that!

Hell, DaVeB0T was warned several times, and he just keeps on doing it, he'll get banned pretty soon.

I guess doing it once isn't such a big deal.

YaBoiKrakerz

Ya know what, screw it you got several, yep you're pretty much fucked if T. Fulp sees this shit.

Hell I don't even like hentai. YaBoiKrakerz

Please keep personal NG-stuff to PM's, I'm glad to converse about it there. And in Daveb0t's case, I believe it was guro that was the problem. No one cares about regular hentai---the anti-porn rule for userpages is for real porn (as it's possibly subject to recordkeeping laws that NG wants no part of) and fucked-up hentai (guro, the ambiguously-legal lolicon, etc). I regularly talk with Wade (he, not Tom, is the site's 'enforcer') regarding site abuse and such, and he's never mentioned anything wrong with normal hentai.

Please direct anything not having to do with the article to PM's on the site. Slash Firestorm (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do thanx, bruh. YaBoiKrakerz