Welcome to Gaia! ::

It wasn't just me >< But it is pleasant to know that I'm not the most ignored member in the tournament, kehehe ^.^ Poor Leon, forever alone

Didn't mean to criticize you

It's just... funny.

Also, I tried the MGR demo, and while it was cool and fun and awesome to slice s**t down, I'm mad a Platinum Games for being partially lazy.

Like, this game is basically "Vanquish: Ninja Sword Edition"

[assuming any of you know what the game "Vanquish" is]

I think Tres has a good idea. It just needs polishing, which he already admitted to and was basically us to help him with.

I for on had a tag-team tournament idea that I wouldn't mind incorporating into what he already had planned thus far.


Also as for MGR ... I don't think it's lazy as much as it's just a simple game play made to look ******** amazing.

It's a game you wanna play while stoned out your mind and have a good time doing so because you are playing a CGI movie. At least imo.

The scores and commentary both provide reasoning and measurements of how well a person did.

Scores are a quantitative measurement of how good you did. Say a category has a minimal score of 1 and maximum of 5. A 1 is shitty, a 5 is fantastic. That's the quantitative measurement of how well you did in the fight. But that, on its own, has little meaning.

So, we have commentary to explain the quantitative measurement and to give detail as to why you got a 3.. and not a 1 or a 5 or some other score. This is the qualitative measurement - or, rather, explanation of the quantitative - of how well you did.

The reason why raw numbers are trumped by judge majority is to minimize the capacity for one judge to completely rig a fight by vastly over/under scoring, which would be - if not for the judge majority cause - a viable means of undercutting the other two judges and undermining the weight of their scores.

Example: Fighter A and Fighter B finish their fight without a conclusive ending, and Judges 1, 2, and 3 grade it.

Judge 1: Fighter A gets a 15, Fighter B gets a 13. Win for Fighter A.
Judge 2: Fighter A gets a 14, Fighter B gets a 13. Win for Fighter A.
Judge 3: Fighter A gets a 5, Fighter B gets a 19. Win for fighter B.

In this situation, Fighter A has clearly won - two judges think so versus one judge in favor of fighter B. But because Judge 3 under/over scored so much, Fighter B gets to win, even though a majority of the judging staff thinks otherwise.

This is why points and commentary are merely measurements and explanations thereof, respectively, rather than the deciding factor. It's a mitigating factor against individual judge bias, favoritism, or what have you. It means that everybody's vote is equal - there's no way for one person to go "Yeah? ******** you two, I disagree" and then completely undermine the authority of their judgments by scoring vastly out of proportion simply to skew the balance.

So judge panel majority > scores, so that a judge cannot use scoring as a mechanism to push a particular fighter ahead even when they lost in the eyes of the rest of the staff. No single judge should be capable of overriding his fellows' scores simply by under/over scoring, otherwise it serves no purpose to have more than one judge.

EDIT:: Also, just to make it clear that it's not just to make sure people don't rig fights (because most judges don't do that), it also accounts for different grading styles. Some people are just more liberal with giving high/low scores, whereas some people score more conservatively. So it also accounts for different approaches.

You would have a point of the rubric itself wasn't complete and utter s**t.

And that's nothing against Vin or the other staff, that's something that's been a problem with pretty much every tournament on Gaia. The rubrics aren't even really rubrics. The things they try to measure can't be measured, or there just isn't even an attempt to give any definitive measurement, which leads to the possibility of s**t judges getting away with s**t things.

If rubrics were done correctly, even with slight variation, all of the judge scores should come out to be relatively the same. They're looking at the same fight, grading the same exact things in that fight. The trend should follow the same pattern. It wouldn't matter if someone is more likely to give a 5 or a 3, because how hard they're grading would be the same across the board.

Of course this assumes that they're actually trying to be objective in the first place. It's still possible to ******** up pretty bad even with the perfect grading tool. Just it really becomes impossible to justify such ******** ups when everybody following the same grading criteria should reach a similar conclusion.

Mine was a definite step in the right direction, but there were plenty of things I could have done better.

I don't even mind that things are flawed. I never expect anything to be perfect. What bothers me is that the people running these things seem like they never learn from any of their mistakes. The same, broken, rubric passes every year and the same bad attitudes about staffing remain staffed, every year.

You do fine, you might be the exception, but as a whole it's the same s**t year in and year out.

Yeah. She knows better then olympic judges. They post difference scores, so they're trash.




Wait what are we talking about.

COIN TOSS!